Justin,
That makes sense to me. Just to verify my understanding:
Any release called "Roller" should be approved by vote according to
Apache process.
If I or anybody else wishes to create their own independent Roller
"distributions" then they shouldn't use the name "Roller." For
example, I was going to include a customized Roller/JSPWiki demo in my
book and call if "Roller Blog Apps Edition" but I should choose a
different name such as "Blog Demo Pack" or "DaveRoller".
- Dave
On Sep 7, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[ perhaps we should recast this thread to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
--On September 3, 2005 3:28:31 PM -0400 "Noel J. Bergman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, you should also be aware that there were complaints raised
regarding the Roller 1.2 release, which was posted on the
rollerweblogger.org after the project had apparently moved into the
Incubator. I defended that release as being the last thing that the
project did before really entering incubation.
And at that same time, I had also pointed out the same thing that Dave
notes regarding the license --- anyone can take the code and make a
release --- but the argument doesn't appear to be accepted by some
Directors when applied to a project's leaders.
I spent some time looking at this situation again today.
AFAICT, there is no longer any confusion regarding reverting the
copyright license in the code pulled from our Subversion repository.
And, Dave's comments recognizing that a vote should have been called
is progress.
Lesson learned.
Moving forward, my take is thus: Incubating projects are often in
limbo: if anyone pulled Tomcat from our repository and tried to label
their release 'Tomcat', then we'd be justifiably upset (no amount of
disclaimers help). However, for projects like Roller where the
original contributor isn't used to our policies, then it's a bit of an
open question what's the right thing to do. If the contributor
intends to continue to issue 'self-releases' (i.e. no vote and
replacing their original 'donated code') from our code base after
entering Incubation, we should strongly suggest that the Incubating
project choose a different name or that the 'self-release' snapshots
be under a different name. This is to minimize confusion and also
follows the appropriate behavior for 'full' ASF projects.
However, this need not be a hard requirement if careful attention is
made. SA kept the same name; but they were very clear about the
provenance of the code in the ASF repository and didn't 'cut' releases
from Subversion until everything was cleared up legally. They
maintained their old CVS repository for 2.x releases and cut releases
from that until they were ready to release 3.0 under the Apache
License. -- justin
