(please note mixed private/public lists) Just to be clear: the ASF *must* own trademark rights to any software project or product before it can become a top level Apache project. This is the fundamental way that the ASF can ensure the project can maintain independent governance in the future.
This is a hard requirement on exiting Incubation; we do not require trademark rights to *enter* incubation, but there should be a clear statement that whatever name/logos an incoming podling plans to use will be donated to the ASF during incubation. It's a lot easier to start the podling hosting setup with the right name, rather than changing later. - Shane On 3/26/15 10:54 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote: > John thanks for the link to the actual naming issue that is part > of the larger point. There is a serious > naming issue here - ASF products can’t be named the same thing > as a Big Company’s products. We don’t do that without donation and/or > having the product be in compliance with the naming guidelines from > Trademarks and its committee. Bringing trademarks@ > in to the conversation now which should have been done by this PMC > long ago. The fact that it wasn’t is troubling. > > I think that the PMC needs a full report at the next board meeting. > CC’ing board@ as I may or may not be a Director when that happens but > it should be picked up by the newly elected board. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> > Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> > Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 5:52 AM > To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing >>> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is >>> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons. >>> >>> Note we recently went through a similar thought >>> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and >>> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through >>> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is >>> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such >>> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together >>> (aka you can’t release one without the other). >>> >>> Here are a few reasons: >>> >>> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires >>> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products. >>> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have >>> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s >>> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to >>> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen. >>> >>> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds >>> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee >>> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and >>> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue >>> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there >>> already. >>> >>> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that >>> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set >>> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now >>> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through >>> the IP clearance. >>> >>> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t >>> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t >>> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one. >>> >>> Instead, I would recommend the following: >>> >>> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator >>> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that >>> are ASF or IPMC members >>> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its >>> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups, >>> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked >>> out during Incubation. >>> >>> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into >>> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have >>> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Chris >>> >> >> Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past >> and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ. >> >> Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking for a >> JMS 2.0 implementation. Heck, that's why I went through the pain of >> ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to see >> it happen. I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0 >> implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I >> believe >> all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet >> the >> feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it. >> While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that >> point? It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to >> release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while). >> >> With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the ActiveMQ >> project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when HornetQ's >> ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for >> ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via >> vote). Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut >> releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors. >> >> The sticking point's going to come down to name. I don't see Red Hat >> shutting off the HornetQ project ( http://hornetq.jboss.org/ ) so a name >> would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache >> isn't even referenced on the site. >> >> If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my hat >> in as a mentor to get you going. >> >> John >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> >>> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> >>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM >>> To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >>> >>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of >>> the >>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't >>> really >>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will >>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6. >>>> >>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure >>>> that >>>> direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad >>> to be >>>> having this discussion. >>>> >>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ >>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it >>>> mean >>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction. >>>> >>>> So, let's put this back into perspective. >>>> >>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the >>>> ActiveMQ >>>> community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider >>>> that >>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ). >>>> >>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves >>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple >>> industries, >>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places. >>>> >>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: >>> strength >>>> of >>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the >>> technology; >>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a >>> presumption >>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature. >>>> >>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any >>> valid >>>> merits described. >>>> >>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to >>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ- >>> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene >>>> ration-tp4693781p4693805.html >>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >>> > >
