+1 Can I add a point into that:
there was a lot of hard at the docs as well, to give it a nice apache ActiveMQ looks: http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/docs/10.0.0-M1/index.html We reworked the docs, rebranded, improved... it's beyond in quality to any work I had previously been part in my professional life. it's some quality of work not available even at hornetQ which was my previous working gig. and It's all part of a nice team work. if you download the mobi or ePub, they are actually a nice reading for your kindle or iPad (for your night reading ;) )... and BTW you won't/shouldn't see any single mention of the word H word on it. if you find any, let us know and we fix it. And we did all that as a starting point of the IP Clearance. We can only improve it from there. On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > 2015-04-08 18:33 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Guillaume, >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM >> To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >> >> >My understanding is the following: >> > * the use of "HornetQ" in all the conversations so far were referring to >> >the "HornetQ code donation to the Apache ActiveMQ project". >> > * the HornetQ trademarks were not transferred to the ASF >> > * the "HornetQ" references in the donation have been removed in the git >> >repository (for example all packages have been renamed to >> >org.apache.activemq afaik) >> > >> >So the term "HornetQ code" is slightly abusive, as it's not hornetq >> >anymore, it has been rebranded as activemq code. >> >> The above point is what’s under dispute. The community needs to >> resolve that, and hasn’t. This is one of the center points of the >> discussion. Lost in the weeds of auto bot emails (see separate >> thread); and long threads over the last month, is a clear answer >> on this point: “has it been rebranded”? One set of folks on the >> PMC believe it has; another set believe it hasn’t and that the >> process by which it was rebranded was led by the influence of a >> set of folks from the same company that share a majority on the >> PMC. Thanks for the pointers by everyone to the prior >> discussion, but a decision must be reached to resolve this. >> > > The code having been rebranded is not even a question that can be > disputed. It's not as if if is something "to be done". It's just a fact > that can be verified in the git repo. Packages have been renamed, the > distribution has been renamed, etc... > > HornetQ does not exists at the ASF, as a project or as subproject. The > only thing is the "HornetQ code donation" which has been accepted, > committed and already rebranded. > > What is disputed is the new name and what place this code will have in the > ActiveMQ project (an additional broker or a replacement or whatever > other possibility). > > Actually, all those concerns looks a bit weird when I think about it, given > everything was done openly : the code has been accepted, the git repo has > been named "activemq-6" and all the commits lead to messages on the mailing > list starting with "activemq-6 git commit", and that has been this way > since 5 months. So raising hands after 5 months of open development .... > > Of course, during the recent conversations that took place, especially when > talking about the future of this code donation, the term "HornetQ" was used > as a way to describe the "hornetq code donation which is now located in the > activemq-6 git repository". > > In addition, given the clear goal was to rebrand it to activemq6 (and it > has already been rebranded that way, and the first release of this code is > what started all those discussions), pointing fingers at Red Hat for > abusive trademarks use looks, again, really abusive to me. > > >> >> Please work together as a community to resolve it. >> > > I'm following this flame war as I've been following some other ones > previously, involving the exact same persons. The main problem here is > mistrust, as people are seen to have a hidden agenda, and I'm not really > sure how to help with that, I'm not a marriage conselor. > > In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust > clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when they > all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5 one, I > don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts. > > I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and > having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon abandoned > for a lack of committers working on the core broker. Maintaining the > activemq 5 broker is fine, but I certainly fail to see how there will be an > activemq 6 broker based on activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the > committers on the broker are willing to work on it. > > >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> >> >> >So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does >> >not make any sense to me. >> >So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code >> >currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either >> >activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point. >> > >> > >> >2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <[email protected]>: >> > >> >> Hi Gary, >> >> >> >> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the >> >> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion >> >> the last month. The discussion is one of these options: >> >> >> >> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions: >> >> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x) >> >> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x) >> >> >> >> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions: >> >> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x) >> >> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ >> >> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision >> >> needs to be made. >> >> >> >> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes >> >> Apache HornetQ (incubating) >> >> >> >> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You >> >> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are >> >> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise >> >> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around >> >> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing >> >> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due >> >> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name. >> >> >> >> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its >> >> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying >> >> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community >> >> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m >> >> fairly sure that this isn’t. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Gary Tully <[email protected]> >> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> >> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM >> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: <[email protected]> >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >> >> >> >> >Hi Chris, >> >> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just >> >> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of >> >> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that >> >> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references >> >> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent. >> >> > >> >> >cheers, >> >> >Gary. >> >> > >> >> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Everyone, >> >> >> >> >> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ >> >> >> community needs to address. >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website; >> >> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is >> >> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an >> >> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and >> >> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into >> >> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external >> >> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ >> >> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) - >> >>hornetq.jboss.org >> >> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board >> >> >> report. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the >> >> >>community >> >> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ >> >>into >> >> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1 >> >>project >> >> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must >> >> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report. >> >> >> >> >> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the >> >> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current >> >> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current >> >> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having >> >> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a >> >> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better >> >> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above >> >> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22 >> >> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Greg Stein <[email protected]> >> >> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> >> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM >> >> >> To: <[email protected]>, ActiveMQ-Developers <[email protected] >> > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >> >> >> >> >> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the >> >>individual" >> >> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and >> >>to >> >> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; >> >>again, >> >> >>>as >> >> >>>"Chris, the individual". >> >> >>> >> >> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been >> >>the >> >> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific >> >> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's >> >>note. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Regards, >> >> >>>Greg Stein >> >> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman >> >> >>> >> >> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> >> >>wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which >> >> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important >> >> >>>> project and community. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> As such: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in >> >> >>>>ActiveMQ. >> >> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF >> >>umbrella >> >> >>>>of >> >> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; >> >>another >> >> >>>>is >> >> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start >> >>off >> >> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, >> >>has >> >> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job >> >>of >> >> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that >> >>job >> >> >>>>is >> >> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly >> >> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active >> >> >>>> action is required by the board. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC >> >>and a >> >> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project, >> >> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Clebert Suconic http://community.jboss.org/people/[email protected] http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
