Okay, understood. I wasn't sure whether "content only" things would be a bit different as they might be changed in their form/embedding. e.g. we might produce Asciidoc files but someone else might decide to take the text and potentially a few graphics and insert them into PowerPoint. But I guess that's all covered by the license already.
So I won't do anything here until we actually see a concrete need. On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:30 PM Craig Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lars, > > > On Mar 11, 2019, at 6:29 AM, Lars Francke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Yes, I believe tests are a good thing but worth a separate thread. > > Absolutely. > > > > I'm interested in a point Justin mentioned: The ALv2 was created with > > software in mind. When we create "content" though, will that work equally > > well? > > Textual content as well as graphics, sounds etc. > > I'm not knowledgable enough in legal to talk about this. > > Any idea if we need to think about anything here? Does it make sense to > > reach out to legal@ for this? > > Apache has many examples of both code and non-code. Web sites, > documentation, presentations, test cases, examples are all covered under > the ALv2 which is broad enough for everything that I think this project > will create and publish. > > Legal typically likes to have very specific examples which I don't think > we have quite yet. > > Specific to the point of tests, there could be both process (code) and > content (text) for the tests I mentioned. Both would equally be protected > by ALv2. > > Regards, > > Craig > > > > Cheers, > > Lars > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:01 PM Sharan Foga <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Craig > >> > >> We are on the same page. I mentioned testing and getting feedback from > >> attendees in one of the other threads > >> > >> https://s.apache.org/7FoV > >> > >> I agree about starting separate discussion threads as ideas and feedback > >> might get lost here. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Sharan > >> > >> On 2019/02/26 17:14:12, Craig Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Maybe it's worth a separate thread but I think that student/audience > >> feedback is an important part of training and the project should > seriously > >> consider some formal feedback mechanism. > >>> > >>> For presenter purposes, I would like to have us generate general and > >> specific feedback. > >>> > >>> General: how did you like the presentation? How were the presenter's > >> skills? Did you get what you expected from the presentation? > >>> > >>> Specific: Do you have a good understanding of how the Apache Incubator > >> works? > >>> > >>> Then there are topic-specific quizzes/tests. These probably should be > >> true/false and a/b/c/d questions/answers that could be printed with OCR > >> circles; and given as online using web technology. The quizzes might be > for > >> the audience to check their own understanding, and might be for the > >> presenter to check their presentation skills in conveying the > information. > >>> > >>> The tests might also be useful for BigCo to use in a certification > >> examination. BigCo could use the tests to evaluate students' > understanding > >> of the material and if the student has a satisfactory score can earn > "BigCo > >> Certification of Achievement for Apache Karaf". The exact phrasing of > the > >> certification needs to be vetted with Apache Trademark/Brand but should > be > >> similar to "BigCo distribution of Apache Karaf". > >>> > >>> Craig > >>> > >>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:17 PM, Lars Francke <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> that helps. I assumed as much (hence we put it in the Proposal) but as > >> you > >>>> can see it's already been brought up again on the mailing list so I > >> think > >>>> it's worth it to get a link to a thread with the current stance and > >> put it > >>>> in a FAQ. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Lars > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:30 AM Craig Russell <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Lars, > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Lars Francke <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I believe it'd be good to talk with Legal and/or Trademark early > >> on to > >>>>>>> get > >>>>>>>> an opinion on a few things and then later put a prominent note on > >> that > >>>>> on > >>>>>>>> our website. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It reasonably straight forward I think, as long as 3rd parties > >> respect > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> Apache license, brand and it’s trademarks all is good. For instance > >> [2] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There may need to be a discussion around how do we license non code > >>>>> stuff > >>>>>>> as the ALv2 was only written with software in mind. We also need to > >> take > >>>>>>> care including stuff that under other licenses, for instance a lot > >> of > >>>>>>> content is under creative common licenses and that may or may not > be > >>>>>>> compatible with the apache license. [1] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Good points. And I agree, the current rules probably cover most of > it > >>>>> but I > >>>>>> believe it doesn't hurt to be proactive here and just talk about the > >>>>> issues > >>>>>> we foresee. And you raised one of them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> How exactly can we do that and especially how can we market it and > >>>>> refer > >>>>>>> to it? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As long as there’s no confusion with users that the compony is > >>>>>>> representing the ASF or the ASF project in question, again all is > >> good. > >>>>> [3] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Someone else talked about "certifications" in the VOTE thread. I > >> put > >>>>> them > >>>>>>>> as "out of scope" in the Proposal but that doesn't mean it can't > >>>>> change. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This has come up a couple of of time at the board level and from > >> memory > >>>>>>> it's been something the ASF don’t want to do, that doesn’t mean we > >>>>> can’t > >>>>>>> bring it up again. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I assumed as much, hence I left it out in the proposal but since it > >> was > >>>>>> raised during VOTE I assume it'll come up again. So I'd raise this > as > >>>>> well. > >>>>> > >>>>> My understanding is the same as Justin's. The board is definitely not > >>>>> interested in helping companies create "certified" stamps of approval > >> for > >>>>> training/courses. > >>>>> > >>>>> That said, I do not see anything wrong with the training project > >> creating > >>>>> as part of its offerings things to evaluate attendees' understanding > >> of the > >>>>> materials. In other words, tests. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't recall tests being discussed here. > >>>>> > >>>>> Craig > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I see all of his as content for a FAQ page on our website. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Lars > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Justin > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa < > >>>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa < > >> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa>> > >>>>>>> 2. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#books < > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#books> < > >>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#books < > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#books>> > >>>>>>> 3. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#notes < > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#notes> < > >>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#notes < > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#notes>> > >>>>> Craig L Russell > >>>>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> http://db.apache.org/jdo < > >> http://db.apache.org/jdo> < > >>>>> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo>> > >>> > >>> Craig L Russell > >>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://db.apache.org/jdo < > >> http://db.apache.org/jdo> > >>> > >> > > Craig L Russell > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://db.apache.org/jdo < > http://db.apache.org/jdo> >
