On Sunday 17 June 2007 21:51, Brett Porter wrote: > On 18/06/2007, at 11:46 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > Technically, if you follow all the latest legal discussions and > > stuff, the name of the tgz/zip should be "apache-maven-2.0.7" which > > would allow > > to use an artifactId of apache-maven. We just changed over to > > that format for CXF. That way the signatures are all OK as is. > > (The directory it extracts to should also be apache-maven) > > Do you have a pointer to the specific message-id or policy document > for this? I thought I followed that discussion and it was not seen as > a requirement. > > I can't see why it would be legally required.
There are two "reasons" that come up with these discussions: 1) The project name is officially "Apache Maven", not "Maven". The downloads and such should reflect that. (as should the READMEs, the web site, etc....) 2) Trademark protection - by using "apache-maven-###.tar.gz" or whatever, you know you are getting the real Apache version. If some other company releases a version of Maven that is named "apache-maven-###.tar.gz" and we don't like it (example: they add some stuff into it that we consider a hack or makes it incompatible), we can go after them for trademark infringement/dilution. With it being Apache licensed, the company can release their version with their changes, but they cannot call it "Apache Maven", only we can. I'm not sure if anyone made it official policy, but whenever anyone in the incubator tries to do a release without following that, the incubator folks complain about it. I personally didn't care one way or another so for CXF we just kind of decided to avoid the whole thing and follow the recommendation. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
