Sent from my tablet On Sep 27, 2012 9:51 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > > Luciano's account identifies a clean, bright line between Apache Extras and any Apache project. > > One point of clarification, however, since I see this statement repeatedly. > > It is clear that an Apache Extras project should not *deliver* packages or > components on any org.apache.xxx... class path. > > *Using* packages and definitions on such class paths is a different story. > Those are usable under provisions of the ALv2 license. > > I see no useful purpose in prohibition external code declaring entities having types defined on an org.apache.xxx class path. Obvious cases are the provision of interfaces, declaration of subordinate classes, and declaration of instances of classes all defined for public use in org.apache.xxx... packages. >
It's a trademark issue. Since we don't want to actively police extras managing trademark usage there would be too onerous. > I think any prohibition on *use* must be in the reverse direction. The Apache project source code cannot have such dependencies on entities defined in an org.apache-extras.xxx... package. > Why? Perhaps you are assuming that all code at extras is incompatibly licensed, that is not the case, or perhaps you have some other reason in mind. Ross > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luciano Resende [mailto:luckbr1...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:24 > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: Some clarification needed for Apache Extra projects - Apache Extra in specific > > [ ... ] > > I'd also mention that the Apache Extras projects should not use > org.apache.xxx packages, but org.apache-extras.xxx package. > > > [ ... ] > > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >
