Uff, quite a few questions. And really good ones! I try to play devils advocate.
1) If the ASF owns the NetBeans mark and the netbeans.org domain it doesn't make any legal difference if we call the groupId org.apache.netbeans or just org.netbeans. Or even foo.netbeans. 2.) The referenced page with the artifact publishing guide lists it as SHOULD and not as MUST. 3.) While org.apache.* is definitely preferred nowadays there are plenty ASF projects which use a different groupId for historical reasons. Please check out https://repository.apache.org/#view-repositories;releases~browsestorage 4.) The Branding is imo rarely related to the Maven groupId. The groupId is for technicials to have a technical reference coordinate. The Branding is done on the user facing level. 5.) > 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 ASFNobody should be allowed to push > anything to any package name the ASF controls. This is simply something we > have to make clear with Sonatype, dockerhub and our infra. Sonatype eg has > some pretty strict control in place to forbid 'injection' of artifacts into > foreign groupIds. 6.) NetBeans is not only just an IDE but really a much bigger ecosystem!If we change the groupId - or even worse the package names - then we break all the projects depending on NetBeans for their own stuff. Be it plugins which probably won't compile with new NB versions anymore. Or be it Editor projects based on the NetBeans core. NetBeans is actually not just an IDE and an ecosystem but also a modular environment. A little bit like OSGi, but much more straight. There are many dynamic processes involved which are based on names and reflection. Honestly I do not really see a benefit in moving to org.apache.* for the groupId or package names. Of course it would be more sane NOW, but it would most probably be really disruptive for the whole surrounding projects building on top of NetBeans core technologies. Does this make sense? LieGrue,strub On Monday, 25 March 2019, 15:09:09 CET, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: 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
