On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Roman, > > That was a *really* long email.
Well, I do those from time to time ;-) > 1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play at > all. Instead, there are two things that happen. The first is that the PMC > approves releases which defines each such release as an Apache release. > The second process is that the ASF controls the use of its trademarks. The question is: do we have ASF-wide trademark guidelines or do we allow each PMC to make those as they go. > 2) Apache Approved releases are approved collections of software. That's way too vague for me. I'm not really sure what 'software' means. > The PMC approves artifacts containing known as releases and validates their > contents with signatures so that consumers can verify this. Only approved > releases should be referred to as Apache releases, but anybody else can > make their own releases under any level of diligence that they would like > to apply. This is well covered in the release policy: > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what The devil, as usual, is in the details. When I look at something like: http://pkgs.org/centos-7/centos-x86_64/httpd-2.4.6-31.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm.html it is very tempting to assume it was a release of ASF software. > 3) The control of the abstract concept of the brand is done via trademarks > which is all about how the trademarked words and logos are used and has > nothing much to do with content of releases and everything to do with > control and possibility of confusion. I disagree. ASF owns the trademarks, but then it is up to the foundaiton to define clear guidelines. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
