(Please note mixed private/public lists) On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff: > > 1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there. > 2. The package description should call out those cases where there are > significant deviations from the "official" distributions. Significant > deviations will be determined by the individual PMCs as they know what is > significant and what is not. > > That leaves the technical package name. > > Is using our mark in the technical package name (which cannot have space to > ACK the mark, but assuming there is an ACK of the mark in the description) > an issue? > > So if we have: > > package-name: foo > description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo. > Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar. > Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software > Foundation. > > is the Manchu packaging of Foo ok to use foo as the package name? > > It would seem to be a disservice to users to force Manchu to pick a > different name for Foo (i.e. the firefox vs iceweasel issue)
Correct. For the ASF's purposes, if it is essentially unmodified software - or only modified in the "normal" and well-understood way to fit into that particular platform or distro - then we want the packager to use our actual product names. We definitely should ask for trademark attributions in descriptions or other well-known places. The actual implementation and enforcement of that is a question that depends on the situation. In many cases, if it's simple packaging that truly is just doing the right thing from our perspective, legal attribution probably isn't that big a deal. In particular, a lot of the importance depends on what a well-informed consumer would expect from that particular well-known packaging system. I.e. if the packager is doing what is normal and expected - even if that changes some of the software from our product - it's probably fine. > > On the other hand, packaging up Apache Foo for the Manchu installer > framework may require significant patching of Apache Foo such that it is > necessary to declare that it is *based on Apache Foo* > > Compare and contrast with homebrew's packaging of Apache Maven where they > just download the convenience binary published by the Apache Maven team... > that seems reasonable to be called `maven` because it is actually > installing exactly what the Apache Maven team released without > modifications. > > Shane, do you need further clarifications? Thanks for the excellent distillation of the technical aspects. This is definitely a question we need to draft a clear policy for, so that we can have a consistent way we ask packagers to do things. Trademark law is well established for consumer products, but less so for highly technical software products and different ways that the products are offered to the public. So I need a clear question to bring to counsel to get their perspective on what we should cover. The easiest way to see the applicability of trademarks is to provide a description of an end-users view of the process. Could someone here come up with a description of the process that an end-user would go through when they're trying to get a specific Apache product using one of these methods? I.e. assume you're a developer or sysadmin who is *not* an Apache committer. You know you need to get a software project management tool for the linux machines you maintain, and you've heard of something called "Maven". - What is the actual process by which you'd find out how to get this software (i.e. you'd search for it), and how you'd actually install it? - How would you normally detect if you're getting the original "Maven" software, versus some different software - either a different vendor's version, or perhaps a bogus version with adware in it, or perhaps some non-standard version that is apparently popular, but is *not* the "default" version used on your platform? * Separately: does anyone have links to any trademark/branding policy pages that common package managers have out there? I'm wondering what policy or best practices that are *clearly documented* is already out there for the actual linux distros or package management systems is. Thanks. - Shane > > On 25 August 2015 at 11:52, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly >> <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical name >>> usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark. >> >> Makes two of us. I see a log of good consensus on this thread which helps >> me get a gut feel on what is the right way to go about enforcing the use >> of the mark. That said, I still would love to read Shane's meditation >> on the matter ;-) >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff: >> >> 1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there. >> 2. The package description should call out those cases where there are >> significant deviations from the "official" distributions. Significant >> deviations will be determined by the individual PMCs as they know what >> is significant and what is not. >> >> That leaves the technical package name. >> >> Is using our mark in the technical package name (which cannot have >> space to ACK the mark, but assuming there is an ACK of the mark in the >> description) an issue? >> >> So if we have: >> >> package-name: foo >> description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo. >> Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar. >> Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software >> Foundation. >> >> is the Manchu packaging of Foo ok to use foo as the package name? >> >> It would seem to be a disservice to users to force Manchu to pick a >> different name for Foo (i.e. the firefox vs iceweasel issue) >> >> On the other hand, packaging up Apache Foo for the Manchu installer >> framework may require significant patching of Apache Foo such that it >> is necessary to declare that it is *based on Apache Foo* >> >> Compare and contrast with homebrew's packaging of Apache Maven where >> they just download the convenience binary published by the Apache >> Maven team... that seems reasonable to be called `maven` because it is >> actually installing exactly what the Apache Maven team released >> without modifications. >> >> Shane, do you need further clarifications? >> >> On 25 August 2015 at 11:52, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org >> <mailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly >> <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com >> <mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical name >> > usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark. >> >> Makes two of us. I see a log of good consensus on this thread >> which helps >> me get a gut feel on what is the right way to go about enforcing >> the use >> of the mark. That said, I still would love to read Shane's meditation >> on the matter ;-) >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> <mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> <mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
