Have you considered a private fork? That might be a better option here as it provides additional flexibilities on what to develop (e.g. patented or company specific tech), when and what to upstream and so on. The downside of private fork I experienced was losing the incentive to upstream which creates divergence between in house code base and open source, leading to accumulated tech debt.
A public fork would also work based on the use case description with caveats already pointed out by others commented in this thread. As long as the community is united and does not diverge as a result of the fork (think Presto). On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:51 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hunter, > If you simply want to fork the repository and use it in your company, > respecting the Apache license then in my opinion there is no issue. > As Christopher said problems will arise if you redistribute that code or > binaries outside the limits of Apache license, call it 'Zookeeper'... > > We are releasing source code in order to let users pick it up and use it. > > I suggest you to keep in touch with the community and do not diverge too > much from the community code base. > > If you have new big features or changes the right place to discuss them is > here in this list. > > I saw cases in other ASF projects in which companies decided to go their > way and when they came back to the ASF to merge their fork it took much > time. > > We are here and open to new features and changes > > Thanks for choosing Zookeeper > > Enrico > > Il Ven 14 Ago 2020, 03:35 Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > Hi Hunter, > > > > A public fork is certainly an option under the Apache License. Many > > contributors maintain their own public forks on GitHub to enable them > > to contribute via a pull request on GitHub. While most contributors > > don't build and reproduce artifacts from their forks, they could do > > so, in theory. > > > > If you're generating and redistributing artifacts, the one thing I > > would be very careful about is trademark infringement. Please bear in > > mind that the ASF owns the ZooKeeper trademarks, and careless > > redistribution under that name could lead to confusion in the > > marketplace, and can harm the ZooKeeper community. I'm not a lawyer, > > and you should seek your own legal advice, but I would take care to > > clarify that any modified artifacts that are redistributed are marked > > in a way that distances them from those produced by the ZooKeeper PMC > > within the ASF, so as to avoid trademark infringement and user > > confusion (e.g. by not calling your derivative work "ZooKeeper"). > > > > And, while I can't speak for the ZooKeeper PMC (I'm not on that PMC), > > from my perspective as an ASF member and committer on other projects, > > I think most projects at Apache would prefer to encourage > > contributions and engagement with their existing community, rather > > than see it fractured by independent groups operating apart from their > > community. There's nothing stopping you from creating your own, > > independent community, of course... but creating and growing > > communities is sort of what we do here at the ASF. So, contributing to > > the existing community is strongly encouraged. > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:11 PM Hunter Lee <hu...@linkedin.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi ZooKeeper devs - > > > > > > I wanted to get an opinion on public, open-source forks of ZooKeeper. I > > am aware that there are companies maintaining private or public forks of > > ZooKeeper to deploy & develop their own flavor of ZooKeeper (or > ZooKeeper + > > alpha), like to have a public fork with our own potential use > case-specific > > features or bug fixes, etc. > > > > > > Is the ZooKeeper PMC generally okay with the idea? I wanted to see if > > there were any guidelines or advice regarding having a public fork. > > > > > > The idea is to give us the flexibility to generate artifacts on > modified > > source code (instead of solely relying on official artifacts from Maven > > Central) and give ourselves an opportunity to contribute back to > upstream & > > collaborate in the future. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Hunter > > >
