On 25/03/2019 12.59, Mark Struberg wrote:
We did have this discussion over a year ago with Greg Stein.
Back then the blocker was indeed the missing trademarks for 'NetBeans'.
With this resolved there is no legal problem anymore afaict.
Yes, the ASF by default prefers to use the org.apache.* groupIds. Mostly
because there is no exceptional management necessary in our Nexus
staging setup. But we have quite a few projects using other package
names. E.g. commons still publishes maintenance versions for commons-*
as groupId.
+1 for the Infra ticket as it might be some manual work for them to
allow NB to use org.netbeans.* as groupId. Please make sure to mention
that we need this package name for backward compatibility reasons.
I'm not sure about trademarks@a.o involvement. What do trademarks have
to do with our package name? It's _not_ about the domain, it's about
technical coordinates. Since we (ASF) now own the trademark on
'NetBeans' there is not much to clarify with them imo. It's really more
an infra thingy as this doesn't nicely fit into our
org.apache.${project} schema which is a proven path for them.
Hi Mark,
You may be completely right about this. The uncertainty I have (or had)
was not related to trademarks but the *branding*, which happens to be
handled by the same committee.
I cannot find any public policy document at the ASF clarifying the
desire or possibly requirement how a Maven GroupId may or should be
used from branding POV.
The only practical documentation available with respect to Maven
artifacts is [1] and that assumes and requires using org.apache.
as prefix for the GroupId:
"Maven Group Ids: a list of the groupIds for this project. They should
all be subgroups of org.apache"
All this may indeed only be a technical hurdle, agreed.
But given the ongoing discussions with respect to externally hosted
'binary' releases (like on dockerhub) and especially how these should be
controlled and marked (branded) by the ASF, it seemed advisable to me
to check with the Branding (aka Trademarks) Committee what the rules and
policy requirements are, if any, with respect to Maven GroupId.
Regards,
Ate
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts
LieGrue,
strub
Am 25.03.19 um 09:26 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:48 AM Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote:
...Unless one of the other mentors has a different view or is aware
of more
explicit guidelines in this, I suggest raising these questions at
tradema...@apache.org instead....
+1 and I suggest backing that discussion with a
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS ticket so as to
document what'sm being done and the conclusions.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
