Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
Sorry Dave. I saw (part of) the subject and saw lots of people saying +1. It was my error for not noticing the other part of the subject line (the part about Re:) and for not reading more than the first lines of your email carefully. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Dave snoopd...@gmail.com wrote: There is no VOTE in progress. We voted to graduate on the Usergrid dev list, I forwarded the results of the vote to this list and added a draft TLP resolution for review. As I said when I forwarded the email, I will will call for an IPMC vote shortly. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html Dave On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: However, please do not change the text of any VOTE (graduation, entry into incubation, release approval, anything...) while it is underway. That retroactively changes the meaning of votes already cast, which is problematic. There are better ways to be flexible. To be concrete, some of the ways that I know about include: 1) cancel this vote and start a new one with an edited proposal. Since the podlings suggested text is effectively only a suggestion just as the resolution that the IPMC provides to the board is just a suggestion, this is a fine procedure 2) start a side vote to include a note asking the board to change the resolution. This is finicky and not as straightforward as (1).
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
There is no VOTE in progress. We voted to graduate on the Usergrid dev list, I forwarded the results of the vote to this list and added a draft TLP resolution for review. As I said when I forwarded the email, I will will call for an IPMC vote shortly. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html Dave On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: However, please do not change the text of any VOTE (graduation, entry into incubation, release approval, anything...) while it is underway. That retroactively changes the meaning of votes already cast, which is problematic. There are better ways to be flexible. To be concrete, some of the ways that I know about include: 1) cancel this vote and start a new one with an edited proposal. Since the podlings suggested text is effectively only a suggestion just as the resolution that the IPMC provides to the board is just a suggestion, this is a fine procedure 2) start a side vote to include a note asking the board to change the resolution. This is finicky and not as straightforward as (1).
Re: apache package naming convention
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic: For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.* namespace. This has been the naming convention since the DataFu project started in 2010. Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation process, the topic has come up of moving all of the classes into a org.apache.datafu.* namespace. This was first discussed in January 2014 (see DATAFU-7) and most recently again in the past couple weeks. The consensus at the time last year was that it would be a huge pain for users and not worth the cost. It would break any script out there currently using DataFu. Also Jakob Homan and Russell Journey pointed out that this is just a convention and not all Apache projects follow it. Since we would like DataFu to graduate sometime soon it would be good to clarify what the requirements are on package naming conventions before we do a release. Thoughts? Thanks, Matt Current statement on Incubator website http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation) then later. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase gch...@pivotal.io wrote: Does ...based on Apache Hadoop require a clear dependency notation as to which versions of Apache component releases are part of the commercial distribution? No, it cannot. Trademark law is not a matter of such distinctions, and our very own Apache License imposes no such complexity. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Bill, So I can release Niclas Hadoop platform, based on Apache Hadoop ?? I thought the discussion a few years ago was that this was misleading... Things in law are rarely binary except at the edges or after an actual court ruling. Releasing a Niclas George platform powered by Apache Hadoop conforms with our branding requirements, so would likely be OK. The further you go away from that, the less clear that what you are doing would be OK. Hadoop would be a especially problematic case for you, as Apache Hadoop, Hadoop, Apache, the Apache feather logo, and the Apache Hadoop project logo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation in the United States and other countries. -- https://hadoop.apache.org/ http is a more generic term, so including variants of it in your name (including httpd) would be less problematic than incorporating a name like Hadoop. - Sam Ruby On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: Hi! while answering a question on release policies and ALv2 I've suddenly realized that I really don't know what is the legal basis for enforcing release policies we've got documented over here: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html For example, what would be the legal basis for stopping a 3d party from releasing a snapshot of ASF's project source tree and claim it to be a release X.Y.Z of said project? Nothing other than the Trademarks. If someone wants to call httpd trunk 3.0.1-GA, they cannot do this as Apache httpd 3.0.1-GA or Apache HTTP Server 3.0.1-GA. They can certainly release trunk under the AL license and call it Kindred Http Server 3.0.1-GA, based on Apache HTTP Server. That is a statement of fact and not an abuse of the mark, IMHO. (If it was not actually based on Apache HTTP Server, then that would similarly be a Trademark infringement as it is a false use of the mark.) There are no less than two marks, one is the name of the foundation itself in conjunction with Open Source Software, and the other is the specific project name. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Greg Chase Director of Big Data Communities http://www.pivotal.io/big-data Pivotal Software http://www.pivotal.io/ 650-215-0477 @GregChase Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
Roman, That was a *really* long email. Some general responses. 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. 2) Apache Approved releases are approved collections of software. 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 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. 4) Inferentially, nobody should be saying that something is Apache Hadoop version 9915.3 because no release (see 2 above) has been approved by the PMC and thus that name (see 3 above) cannot be applied without confusing the consumer. Conversely, anybody can copy the bits comprising Zookeeper 3.4.5 source release anywhere they like and they can call those bits Zookeeper 3.4.5 precisely because the trademark owner (Apache) has said that this is permissible use of the trademark by approving the release. 5) Nominative uses as part of product names such as X powered by Apache Y, X based on Apache Y and X for Apache Y have very long standing as permissible uses of the trademark Apache Y. Happily, Apache policy roughly accords with this and you can likely get your IP lawyer to describe it in more detail. There really isn't much more that needs to be said about this since 2 and 3 are pretty much independent. On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: Am 06.08.2015 02:43, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik: [...] As you probably remember we've discussed this issue not that long time ago: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/49852 The consensus there is that as long as you're communicating intent clearly you can let downstream developers test/develop against your development artifacts. IOW, the definition of developers starts including downstream developers integrating with your project. yes, I remember that discussion, but for me the outcome is not as clear as it is for you it seems. Especially with regards to communicating that intend and if it has to go through the release voting cycle. You usually don't do that for SNAPSHOTS or nightly builds and for the nightly builds the release guide is quit clear that it must not be communicated beyond the dev-list. I read that as: a link on the websites of the project is forbidden. Well, all I can share is this (personal ;-)) bit of wisdom: Apache really is about *rough* consensus. And I've come to appreciate that it is a *good* thing. So no -- not every discussion will end in full 100% consensus, but rough consensus is good enough for most situations. But anyway... le tme phrase some scenarios and question: Let us assume httpd makes the release 2.4.10, a linux distributor takes the source, adapts them (for example security patches), compiles packages out of it and releases it as http://packages.ubuntu.com/vivid-updates/apache2-bin in source and binary form. Then it means they took a release and made their own release out of it, while using the apache name. Correct. At that point it constitutes a derived work. The Apache License is very permissive that way, but it is considered a good practice to distinguish the derived work by at leas a version ID. That is also, how all of the Hadoop ecosystem vendors are creating dervived works when they distribute Apache Hadoop as part of their products. E.g. the version string of Cloudera's Hadoop is: ASF_VERSION-CDH_VERSION. This is in line with most of the Linux packaging guidelines as well. the difference is that in Ubuntu I do for example: sudo apt-get install apache2 that's it. No mentioning of a derived version in this at all. apache2 is the package name, something like 2.4.10-9ubuntu1.1 only a version string, which is maybe not looked at by the user. Well, long time ago most Linux distributions seems to have agreed that it is good enough of a differentiator. In fact, I remember at around '98 there was a big outcry from the GCC community around the fact that some patches added by RH broke it in subtle ways AND the user feedback flowed to the GCC MLs not the RH MLs. IIRC that triggered quite a bit of discussion, but in
apache package naming convention
Hi all, Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic: For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.* namespace. This has been the naming convention since the DataFu project started in 2010. Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation process, the topic has come up of moving all of the classes into a org.apache.datafu.* namespace. This was first discussed in January 2014 (see DATAFU-7) and most recently again in the past couple weeks. The consensus at the time last year was that it would be a huge pain for users and not worth the cost. It would break any script out there currently using DataFu. Also Jakob Homan and Russell Journey pointed out that this is just a convention and not all Apache projects follow it. Since we would like DataFu to graduate sometime soon it would be good to clarify what the requirements are on package naming conventions before we do a release. Thoughts? Thanks, Matt
Re: apache package naming convention
Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat, and the change would be breaking. On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Hi all, Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic: For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.* namespace. This has been the naming convention since the DataFu project started in 2010. Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation process, the topic has come up of moving all of the classes into a org.apache.datafu.* namespace. This was first discussed in January 2014 (see DATAFU-7) and most recently again in the past couple weeks. The consensus at the time last year was that it would be a huge pain for users and not worth the cost. It would break any script out there currently using DataFu. Also Jakob Homan and Russell Journey pointed out that this is just a convention and not all Apache projects follow it. Since we would like DataFu to graduate sometime soon it would be good to clarify what the requirements are on package naming conventions before we do a release. Thoughts? Thanks, Matt Current statement on Incubator website http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation) then later. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/ -- Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jur...@gmail.com datasyndrome.com
Re: apache binary distributions
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?... IMO any object/binary created from our source code has to be clearly identified as not coming from the ASF. If Kermit distributes a compiled version of httpd for example I would expect that to be labeled as Kermit's distribution of the Apache HTTP Server. And if that's done properly I would expect filenames to reflect this where possible, so Kermit's binary package should be named like kermit-httpd-2.4.16.tgz to help prevent confusion. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
Am 07.08.2015 02:50, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: [...] The assumption that you're making is a reasonable one: only PMC is authorized to make work available (which will mean that everything else is derived work). That said, I'd appreciate if somebody can point out to me the basis on which we make an assertion that only PMC is authorized to produce releases of apache projects. Official releases are released releases in the apache sense, meaning there has been a voting and in that the PMC votes are binding. For me that authorizes the PMC to produce official releases of apache projects. Of course unreleased releases can in theory be made by everyone. [...] IOW, what makes a binary convenience artifact an official ASF artifact is not whether it got designated as such, but whether it corresponds to an official source release produced by the PMC. ok, noted [...] Then again nightly builds should be ok, if they will have the same disclaimer? No. Nightly builds are special precisely because they don't correspond to an official source release. understood Or is it ok if the nightly build comes from non-apache? It is ok, but at that point it becomes 3d party artifact and as such can't be promoted as part of ASF project. can't be promoted means no link or description on the web page? Not even with disclaimer? [...] As I said -- that person(*) (even a PMC member of the project) as a person has even more rights than a PMC does, except in one crucial area -- that person can NOT speak on behalf of the project (and that includes linking to that person's artifacts from the PMC managed assets: website, wiki, etc.). Other than that, that person is absolutely free to: #1 produce maven binaries based on, really anything, including but not limited to snapshot of source tree #2 distribute those binaries however he/she sees fit provided they can't be confused with project's binaries. Modifying versionID while leaving everything else as-is is considered acceptable. #2 of course may be subject to constraints of distribution channel. An example is a recently cited Maven Central policy where they are NOT allowing to publish SNAPSHOTs AND they only allow owners of the groupID to publish. Those constraints, of course, have nothing to do with ASF or the project -- those are Maven Central constraints. ok, as long as this is general opinion. bye blackdrag -- Jochen blackdrag Theodorou blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Why not? So *everything * in your world is forbidden? Join the world of freedom. Am 07.08.2015 13:55 schrieb Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org: Bill, So I can release Niclas Hadoop platform, based on Apache Hadoop ?? I thought the discussion a few years ago was that this was misleading... On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: Hi! while answering a question on release policies and ALv2 I've suddenly realized that I really don't know what is the legal basis for enforcing release policies we've got documented over here: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html For example, what would be the legal basis for stopping a 3d party from releasing a snapshot of ASF's project source tree and claim it to be a release X.Y.Z of said project? Nothing other than the Trademarks. If someone wants to call httpd trunk 3.0.1-GA, they cannot do this as Apache httpd 3.0.1-GA or Apache HTTP Server 3.0.1-GA. They can certainly release trunk under the AL license and call it Kindred Http Server 3.0.1-GA, based on Apache HTTP Server. That is a statement of fact and not an abuse of the mark, IMHO. (If it was not actually based on Apache HTTP Server, then that would similarly be a Trademark infringement as it is a false use of the mark.) There are no less than two marks, one is the name of the foundation itself in conjunction with Open Source Software, and the other is the specific project name. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
Why are certain mentors left out of this resolution while others are put on the new PMC without any discussion anywhere about this? I'd very much like an answer or a change to the resolution text. With regards, Daniel. On 2015-08-07 17:19, Dave wrote: The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed with graduation. Below is the proposed TLP resolution for your review. I will be calling for an IPMC gradation vote on this shortly. Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache Usergrid Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Usergrid be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Usergrid Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Usegrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Usegrid Project: * Tim Anglade timangl...@apache.org * Askhat Asanaliev aasanal...@apache.org * John D. Amentjohndam...@apache.org * Ed Anuff edan...@apache.org * Furkan Bıçak fbi...@apache.org * Ryan Bridges ry...@apache.org * Scott Ganyo scottga...@apache.org * Sungju Jin sun...@apache.org * Dave Johnson snoopd...@apache.org * Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org * Salih Kardan skar...@apache.org * Shaozhuang Liu st...@apache.org * Nate McCall zzn...@apache.org * John Mcgibbney lewi...@apache.org * Alex Muramotoamuram...@apache.org * Todd Ninetoddn...@apache.org * Luciano Resende lrese...@apache.org * Yiğit Şaplı yig...@apache.org * Rod Simpson rockers...@apache.org * Jeff Westjeffreyaw...@apache.org NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Todd Nine be appointed to the office of Vice President, Usergrid, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Usergrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator Usegrid podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Apache Incubator Usergrid podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator PMC are hereafter discharged. -- Forwarded message - From: Dave snoopd...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator To: d...@usergrid.incubator.apache.org +1 Dave +1 Rod +1 Ed +1 Sungju +1 Todd +1 John +1 Shawn +1 Alex M +1 Nate +1 Jeff +1 Alex K +1 George +1 Jason And the vote passes! On to the incubator. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed with graduation. Below is the proposed TLP resolution for your review. I will be calling for an IPMC gradation vote on this shortly. Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache Usergrid Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Usergrid be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Usergrid Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Usegrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Usegrid Project: * Tim Anglade timangl...@apache.org * Askhat Asanaliev aasanal...@apache.org * John D. Amentjohndam...@apache.org * Ed Anuff edan...@apache.org * Furkan Bıçak fbi...@apache.org * Ryan Bridges ry...@apache.org * Scott Ganyo scottga...@apache.org * Sungju Jin sun...@apache.org * Dave Johnson snoopd...@apache.org * Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org * Salih Kardan skar...@apache.org * Shaozhuang Liu st...@apache.org * Nate McCall zzn...@apache.org * John Mcgibbney lewi...@apache.org * Alex Muramotoamuram...@apache.org * Todd Ninetoddn...@apache.org * Luciano Resende lrese...@apache.org * Yiğit Şaplı yig...@apache.org * Rod Simpson rockers...@apache.org * Jeff Westjeffreyaw...@apache.org NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Todd Nine be appointed to the office of Vice President, Usergrid, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Usergrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator Usegrid podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Apache Incubator Usergrid podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator PMC are hereafter discharged. -- Forwarded message - From: Dave snoopd...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator To: d...@usergrid.incubator.apache.org +1 Dave +1 Rod +1 Ed +1 Sungju +1 Todd +1 John +1 Shawn +1 Alex M +1 Nate +1 Jeff +1 Alex K +1 George +1 Jason And the vote passes! On to the incubator.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Does ...based on Apache Hadoop require a clear dependency notation as to which versions of Apache component releases are part of the commercial distribution? On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Bill, So I can release Niclas Hadoop platform, based on Apache Hadoop ?? I thought the discussion a few years ago was that this was misleading... Things in law are rarely binary except at the edges or after an actual court ruling. Releasing a Niclas George platform powered by Apache Hadoop conforms with our branding requirements, so would likely be OK. The further you go away from that, the less clear that what you are doing would be OK. Hadoop would be a especially problematic case for you, as Apache Hadoop, Hadoop, Apache, the Apache feather logo, and the Apache Hadoop project logo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation in the United States and other countries. -- https://hadoop.apache.org/ http is a more generic term, so including variants of it in your name (including httpd) would be less problematic than incorporating a name like Hadoop. - Sam Ruby On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: Hi! while answering a question on release policies and ALv2 I've suddenly realized that I really don't know what is the legal basis for enforcing release policies we've got documented over here: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html For example, what would be the legal basis for stopping a 3d party from releasing a snapshot of ASF's project source tree and claim it to be a release X.Y.Z of said project? Nothing other than the Trademarks. If someone wants to call httpd trunk 3.0.1-GA, they cannot do this as Apache httpd 3.0.1-GA or Apache HTTP Server 3.0.1-GA. They can certainly release trunk under the AL license and call it Kindred Http Server 3.0.1-GA, based on Apache HTTP Server. That is a statement of fact and not an abuse of the mark, IMHO. (If it was not actually based on Apache HTTP Server, then that would similarly be a Trademark infringement as it is a false use of the mark.) There are no less than two marks, one is the name of the foundation itself in conjunction with Open Source Software, and the other is the specific project name. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Greg Chase Director of Big Data Communities http://www.pivotal.io/big-data Pivotal Software http://www.pivotal.io/ 650-215-0477 @GregChase Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
I believe the reasoning is that some mentors want to move forward with the Usergrid TLP, while others were around to help with incubation only. Its been typical for a podling to not graduate with all mentors in toe. John On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:55 AM Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: Why are certain mentors left out of this resolution while others are put on the new PMC without any discussion anywhere about this? I'd very much like an answer or a change to the resolution text. With regards, Daniel. On 2015-08-07 17:19, Dave wrote: The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed with graduation. Below is the proposed TLP resolution for your review. I will be calling for an IPMC gradation vote on this shortly. Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache Usergrid Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Usergrid be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Usergrid Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Usegrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Usegrid Project: * Tim Anglade timangl...@apache.org * Askhat Asanaliev aasanal...@apache.org * John D. Amentjohndam...@apache.org * Ed Anuff edan...@apache.org * Furkan Bıçak fbi...@apache.org * Ryan Bridges ry...@apache.org * Scott Ganyo scottga...@apache.org * Sungju Jin sun...@apache.org * Dave Johnson snoopd...@apache.org * Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org * Salih Kardan skar...@apache.org * Shaozhuang Liu st...@apache.org * Nate McCall zzn...@apache.org * John Mcgibbney lewi...@apache.org * Alex Muramotoamuram...@apache.org * Todd Ninetoddn...@apache.org * Luciano Resende lrese...@apache.org * Yiğit Şaplı yig...@apache.org * Rod Simpson rockers...@apache.org * Jeff Westjeffreyaw...@apache.org NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Todd Nine be appointed to the office of Vice President, Usergrid, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Usergrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator Usegrid podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Apache Incubator Usergrid podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator PMC are hereafter discharged. -- Forwarded message - From: Dave snoopd...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator To: d...@usergrid.incubator.apache.org +1 Dave +1 Rod +1 Ed +1 Sungju +1 Todd +1 John +1 Shawn +1 Alex M +1 Nate +1 Jeff +1 Alex K +1 George +1 Jason And the vote passes! On to the incubator. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
On 08/07/2015 06:44 PM, John D. Ament wrote: I believe the reasoning is that some mentors want to move forward with the Usergrid TLP, while others were around to help with incubation only. Its been typical for a podling to not graduate with all mentors in toe. John Right, but why was it not discussed? Why were these mentors not asked _at all_? From looking at the initial vote, it kind of seems like the new PMC was single-handedly cherry-picked without any previous discussion, and that bothers me. If they don't want to be a part of the PMC, that's fine, but there should at least be a discussion on who should be on the PMC. I don't see any such discussion, nor do I see (or hear) them saying they are fine with it or don't want to be a part of the PMC. With regards, Daniel. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:55 AM Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: Why are certain mentors left out of this resolution while others are put on the new PMC without any discussion anywhere about this? I'd very much like an answer or a change to the resolution text. With regards, Daniel. On 2015-08-07 17:19, Dave wrote: The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed with graduation. Below is the proposed TLP resolution for your review. I will be calling for an IPMC gradation vote on this shortly. Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache Usergrid Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Usergrid be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Usergrid Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Usegrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Usegrid Project: * Tim Anglade timangl...@apache.org * Askhat Asanaliev aasanal...@apache.org * John D. Amentjohndam...@apache.org * Ed Anuff edan...@apache.org * Furkan Bıçak fbi...@apache.org * Ryan Bridges ry...@apache.org * Scott Ganyo scottga...@apache.org * Sungju Jin sun...@apache.org * Dave Johnson snoopd...@apache.org * Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org * Salih Kardan skar...@apache.org * Shaozhuang Liu st...@apache.org * Nate McCall zzn...@apache.org * John Mcgibbney lewi...@apache.org * Alex Muramotoamuram...@apache.org * Todd Ninetoddn...@apache.org * Luciano Resende lrese...@apache.org * Yiğit Şaplı yig...@apache.org * Rod Simpson rockers...@apache.org * Jeff Westjeffreyaw...@apache.org NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Todd Nine be appointed to the office of Vice President, Usergrid, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Usergrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator Usegrid podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Apache Incubator Usergrid podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator PMC are hereafter discharged. -- Forwarded message - From: Dave snoopd...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE]
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
Hey John Sorry, just getting back from vacation and catching up on email. That would be fine and make sense if that had been part of the discussion on list leading up to the vote, but from what I can see that did not occur. Can you provide a link to the thread where that was decided please -Jake On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: I believe the reasoning is that some mentors want to move forward with the Usergrid TLP, while others were around to help with incubation only. Its been typical for a podling to not graduate with all mentors in toe. John On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:55 AM Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: Why are certain mentors left out of this resolution while others are put on the new PMC without any discussion anywhere about this? I'd very much like an answer or a change to the resolution text. With regards, Daniel. On 2015-08-07 17:19, Dave wrote: The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed with graduation. Below is the proposed TLP resolution for your review. I will be calling for an IPMC gradation vote on this shortly. Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache Usergrid Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Usergrid be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Usergrid Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Usegrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Usegrid Project: * Tim Anglade timangl...@apache.org * Askhat Asanaliev aasanal...@apache.org * John D. Amentjohndam...@apache.org * Ed Anuff edan...@apache.org * Furkan Bıçak fbi...@apache.org * Ryan Bridges ry...@apache.org * Scott Ganyo scottga...@apache.org * Sungju Jin sun...@apache.org * Dave Johnson snoopd...@apache.org * Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org * Salih Kardan skar...@apache.org * Shaozhuang Liu st...@apache.org * Nate McCall zzn...@apache.org * John Mcgibbney lewi...@apache.org * Alex Muramotoamuram...@apache.org * Todd Ninetoddn...@apache.org * Luciano Resende lrese...@apache.org * Yiğit Şaplı yig...@apache.org * Rod Simpson rockers...@apache.org * Jeff Westjeffreyaw...@apache.org NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Todd Nine be appointed to the office of Vice President, Usergrid, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Usergrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator Usegrid podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Apache Incubator Usergrid podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator PMC are hereafter discharged. -- Forwarded message - From: Dave snoopd...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Dave snoopd...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it is too late to add back anybody that I left out before we start the IPMC vote. What do you think? It's not too late. The text of the resolution is a recommendation to the Board, and the Board has the option to modify it before passing a resolution establishing the project per the Foundation's bylaws. The Board frequently fixes typos and I believe has occasionally tinkered with scope clauses. However, please do not change the text of any VOTE (graduation, entry into incubation, release approval, anything...) while it is underway. That retroactively changes the meaning of votes already cast, which is problematic. There are better ways to be flexible. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
Daniel and Jake, I created the list in the resolution and I'm the one of left out some mentors. That my fault. I wrongly assumed that some mentors were just there to be mentors and had no intention of staying with the project. I did share the resolution before we started voting on the Usergrid dev list and nobody brought up any issue with the list. I don't think it is too late to add back anybody that I left out before we start the IPMC vote. What do you think? Dave On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:31 PM Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: On 08/07/2015 06:44 PM, John D. Ament wrote: I believe the reasoning is that some mentors want to move forward with the Usergrid TLP, while others were around to help with incubation only. Its been typical for a podling to not graduate with all mentors in toe. John Right, but why was it not discussed? Why were these mentors not asked _at all_? From looking at the initial vote, it kind of seems like the new PMC was single-handedly cherry-picked without any previous discussion, and that bothers me. If they don't want to be a part of the PMC, that's fine, but there should at least be a discussion on who should be on the PMC. I don't see any such discussion, nor do I see (or hear) them saying they are fine with it or don't want to be a part of the PMC. With regards, Daniel. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:55 AM Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: Why are certain mentors left out of this resolution while others are put on the new PMC without any discussion anywhere about this? I'd very much like an answer or a change to the resolution text. With regards, Daniel. On 2015-08-07 17:19, Dave wrote: The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed with graduation. Below is the proposed TLP resolution for your review. I will be calling for an IPMC gradation vote on this shortly. Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache Usergrid Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Usergrid be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Usergrid Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Usegrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Usegrid Project: * Tim Anglade timangl...@apache.org * Askhat Asanaliev aasanal...@apache.org * John D. Amentjohndam...@apache.org * Ed Anuff edan...@apache.org * Furkan Bıçak fbi...@apache.org * Ryan Bridges ry...@apache.org * Scott Ganyo scottga...@apache.org * Sungju Jin sun...@apache.org * Dave Johnson snoopd...@apache.org * Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org * Salih Kardan skar...@apache.org * Shaozhuang Liu st...@apache.org * Nate McCall zzn...@apache.org * John Mcgibbney lewi...@apache.org * Alex Muramotoamuram...@apache.org * Todd Ninetoddn...@apache.org * Luciano Resende lrese...@apache.org * Yiğit Şaplı yig...@apache.org * Rod Simpson rockers...@apache.org * Jeff Westjeffreyaw...@apache.org NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Todd Nine be appointed to the office of Vice President, Usergrid, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
On 08/07/2015 07:37 PM, Dave wrote: Daniel and Jake, I created the list in the resolution and I'm the one of left out some mentors. That my fault. I wrongly assumed that some mentors were just there to be mentors and had no intention of staying with the project. I did share the resolution before we started voting on the Usergrid dev list and nobody brought up any issue with the list. I don't think it is too late to add back anybody that I left out before we start the IPMC vote. What do you think? I don't think it's too late, no :) That's why we, among other reasons, have the IPMC involved in these resolutions, so we can get an 'outside' view of what's going on, and get feedback on issues we, as mentors/podlings, sometimes miss. I am totally fine with just amending the resolution and adding those mentors who express a desire to stay on. However (yes, there's always one of those when I'm involved :p) I think other podlings should take note of this, and remember that issues like graduation needs to be carefully discussed in public, so as to have a credible audit trail with regards to the decisions made. With regards, Daniel. Dave On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:31 PM Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: On 08/07/2015 06:44 PM, John D. Ament wrote: I believe the reasoning is that some mentors want to move forward with the Usergrid TLP, while others were around to help with incubation only. Its been typical for a podling to not graduate with all mentors in toe. John Right, but why was it not discussed? Why were these mentors not asked _at all_? From looking at the initial vote, it kind of seems like the new PMC was single-handedly cherry-picked without any previous discussion, and that bothers me. If they don't want to be a part of the PMC, that's fine, but there should at least be a discussion on who should be on the PMC. I don't see any such discussion, nor do I see (or hear) them saying they are fine with it or don't want to be a part of the PMC. With regards, Daniel. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:55 AM Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: Why are certain mentors left out of this resolution while others are put on the new PMC without any discussion anywhere about this? I'd very much like an answer or a change to the resolution text. With regards, Daniel. On 2015-08-07 17:19, Dave wrote: The Usergrid podling has voted to proceed with graduation. Below is the proposed TLP resolution for your review. I will be calling for an IPMC gradation vote on this shortly. Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache Usergrid Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Usergrid be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Usergrid Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Usegrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Usegrid Project: * Tim Anglade timangl...@apache.org * Askhat Asanaliev aasanal...@apache.org * John D. Amentjohndam...@apache.org * Ed Anuff edan...@apache.org * Furkan Bıçak fbi...@apache.org * Ryan Bridges ry...@apache.org * Scott Ganyo scottga...@apache.org * Sungju Jin sun...@apache.org * Dave Johnson snoopd...@apache.org * Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org * Salih Kardan skar...@apache.org * Shaozhuang Liu st...@apache.org * Nate McCall zzn...@apache.org * John Mcgibbney lewi...@apache.org * Alex Muramotoamuram...@apache.org * Todd Ninetoddn...@apache.org * Luciano Resende lrese...@apache.org * Yiğit Şaplı yig...@apache.org * Rod Simpson
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: However, please do not change the text of any VOTE (graduation, entry into incubation, release approval, anything...) while it is underway. That retroactively changes the meaning of votes already cast, which is problematic. There are better ways to be flexible. To be concrete, some of the ways that I know about include: 1) cancel this vote and start a new one with an edited proposal. Since the podlings suggested text is effectively only a suggestion just as the resolution that the IPMC provides to the board is just a suggestion, this is a fine procedure 2) start a side vote to include a note asking the board to change the resolution. This is finicky and not as straightforward as (1).
Re: Fwd: [VOTE] Graduate Usergrid from the incubator
Below is a revised TLP resolution for Usergrid for review. I added to the list our mentors Jim J and Jake F. I believe the list is complete now. Also, I removed the below paragraph, which is unnecessary and only exists because I copied some other project's resolution. We don't need special Usergrid bylaws, the ASF bylaws are good enough. RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Usergrid Project; and be it further I welcome any suggestions or other feedback on this resolution. Dave Apache Usergrid top-level project resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache Usergrid Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Usergrid BaaS software; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Usergrid be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Usergrid Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Usegrid Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Usegrid Project: * Tim Anglade timangl...@apache.org * Askhat Asanaliev aasanal...@apache.org * John D. Amentjohndam...@apache.org * Ed Anuff edan...@apache.org * Furkan Bıçak fbi...@apache.org * Ryan Bridges ry...@apache.org * Jake Farrell jfarr...@apachge.org * Scott Ganyo scottga...@apache.org * Sungju Jin sun...@apache.org * Dave Johnson snoopd...@apache.org * Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org * Salih Kardan skar...@apache.org * Jim Jagielskij...@apache.org * Shaozhuang Liu st...@apache.org * Nate McCall zzn...@apache.org * John Mcgibbney lewi...@apache.org * Alex Muramotoamuram...@apache.org * Todd Ninetoddn...@apache.org * Luciano Resende lrese...@apache.org * Yiğit Şaplı yig...@apache.org * Rod Simpson rockers...@apache.org * Jeff Westjeffreyaw...@apache.org NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Todd Nine be appointed to the office of Vice President, Usergrid, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Usergrid Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator Usegrid podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Apache Incubator Usergrid podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator PMC are hereafter discharged. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:51 PM Dave snoopd...@gmail.com wrote: There is no VOTE in progress. We voted to graduate on the Usergrid dev list, I forwarded the results of the vote to this list and added a draft TLP resolution for review. As I said when I forwarded the email, I will will call for an IPMC vote shortly. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html Dave On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: However, please do not change the text of any VOTE (graduation, entry into incubation, release approval, anything...) while it is underway. That retroactively changes the meaning of votes already cast, which is problematic. There are better ways to be flexible. To be concrete, some of the ways that I know about include: 1) cancel this vote and start a new one with an edited proposal. Since the podlings suggested text is effectively only a suggestion just as the resolution that
Re: Podlings and the ASF maturity model (was: Reform of Incubator...)
Bertrans, yes, something like that. I think a simple page in the regular documentation is good enough, which states the model items, whether fully complies with it, and if not why that is the case. Start out to make it a recommendation to all podlings to take a look and incorporate, thumbs up for those who do it, and over time increase the pressure a little bit. On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: ...the maturity model shouldn't be a set of gating criteria, but that the podling should self-assess its position and to what degree, as well as how, each point is handled. Yes, many of the points are non-negotiable, but don't claim that all are... So you would see the maturity model as one element of the Incubation graduating checklist, with self-assessment from the podling and its mentors? I like the idea. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Bill, So I can release Niclas Hadoop platform, based on Apache Hadoop ?? I thought the discussion a few years ago was that this was misleading... On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: Hi! while answering a question on release policies and ALv2 I've suddenly realized that I really don't know what is the legal basis for enforcing release policies we've got documented over here: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html For example, what would be the legal basis for stopping a 3d party from releasing a snapshot of ASF's project source tree and claim it to be a release X.Y.Z of said project? Nothing other than the Trademarks. If someone wants to call httpd trunk 3.0.1-GA, they cannot do this as Apache httpd 3.0.1-GA or Apache HTTP Server 3.0.1-GA. They can certainly release trunk under the AL license and call it Kindred Http Server 3.0.1-GA, based on Apache HTTP Server. That is a statement of fact and not an abuse of the mark, IMHO. (If it was not actually based on Apache HTTP Server, then that would similarly be a Trademark infringement as it is a false use of the mark.) There are no less than two marks, one is the name of the foundation itself in conjunction with Open Source Software, and the other is the specific project name. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Bill, So I can release Niclas Hadoop platform, based on Apache Hadoop ?? I thought the discussion a few years ago was that this was misleading... Things in law are rarely binary except at the edges or after an actual court ruling. Releasing a Niclas George platform powered by Apache Hadoop conforms with our branding requirements, so would likely be OK. The further you go away from that, the less clear that what you are doing would be OK. Hadoop would be a especially problematic case for you, as Apache Hadoop, Hadoop, Apache, the Apache feather logo, and the Apache Hadoop project logo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation in the United States and other countries. -- https://hadoop.apache.org/ http is a more generic term, so including variants of it in your name (including httpd) would be less problematic than incorporating a name like Hadoop. - Sam Ruby On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: Hi! while answering a question on release policies and ALv2 I've suddenly realized that I really don't know what is the legal basis for enforcing release policies we've got documented over here: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html For example, what would be the legal basis for stopping a 3d party from releasing a snapshot of ASF's project source tree and claim it to be a release X.Y.Z of said project? Nothing other than the Trademarks. If someone wants to call httpd trunk 3.0.1-GA, they cannot do this as Apache httpd 3.0.1-GA or Apache HTTP Server 3.0.1-GA. They can certainly release trunk under the AL license and call it Kindred Http Server 3.0.1-GA, based on Apache HTTP Server. That is a statement of fact and not an abuse of the mark, IMHO. (If it was not actually based on Apache HTTP Server, then that would similarly be a Trademark infringement as it is a false use of the mark.) There are no less than two marks, one is the name of the foundation itself in conjunction with Open Source Software, and the other is the specific project name. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache package naming convention
+1. Pig scripts are written by hand, mostly by data scientists with modest software skills, so asking them to change all their scripts is both painful and annoying with no real benefit. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Russell Jurney russell.jur...@gmail.com wrote: Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat, and the change would be breaking. On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Hi all, Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic: For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.* namespace. This has been the naming convention since the DataFu project started in 2010. Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation process, the topic has come up of moving all of the classes into a org.apache.datafu.* namespace. This was first discussed in January 2014 (see DATAFU-7) and most recently again in the past couple weeks. The consensus at the time last year was that it would be a huge pain for users and not worth the cost. It would break any script out there currently using DataFu. Also Jakob Homan and Russell Journey pointed out that this is just a convention and not all Apache projects follow it. Since we would like DataFu to graduate sometime soon it would be good to clarify what the requirements are on package naming conventions before we do a release. Thoughts? Thanks, Matt Current statement on Incubator website http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation) then later. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/ -- Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jur...@gmail.com datasyndrome.com
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
On Aug 7, 2015 3:20 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase gch...@pivotal.io wrote: Does ...based on Apache Hadoop require a clear dependency notation as to which versions of Apache component releases are part of the commercial distribution? No, it cannot. Trademark law is not a matter of such distinctions, and our very own Apache License imposes no such complexity. Correct, and I don't expect we would ever enforce such a covenant on the use of an ASF mark. However, in the context of offering ASF software in the commercial or noncommercial spaces, providing that information in some manner is just good form and helpful to all end users. Please never claim it is based on an unreleased version number. Many projects refer to foo 1.5.2-dev until 1.5.2 is released. But if it is based on 1.5.2-dev, this probably corresponds to 1.5.1+ patches, not the actual 1.5.2 that will ship in the future. Note that in the case of these projects here, it is important to note that the code base is incubating (phrased as Apache Incubator Project Foo or Apache Foo, incubating). This isn't a concern for bundling TLP project sources.
Re: apache package naming convention
By that notion, practically all incoming projects would be in non org.apache namespaces, and that would be a different kind of detrimental situation. So, my(!) general recommendation has been; for any releases that maintain 100% compatibility, keep the namespace as before. But as soon as a major (1.x - 2.0) release is made, that the namespace is changing with it. Doing a search/replace for s/import datafu/import org.apache.datafu across N files (and you can provide the script) is not a big deal compared to whatever other compatibility-breaking changes that are introduced in the major upgrade. But as Luciano says; The sooner, the better, as fewer people are impacted. Niclas On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Russell Jurney russell.jur...@gmail.com wrote: Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat, and the change would be breaking. On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Hi all, Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic: For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.* namespace. This has been the naming convention since the DataFu project started in 2010. Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation process, the topic has come up of moving all of the classes into a org.apache.datafu.* namespace. This was first discussed in January 2014 (see DATAFU-7) and most recently again in the past couple weeks. The consensus at the time last year was that it would be a huge pain for users and not worth the cost. It would break any script out there currently using DataFu. Also Jakob Homan and Russell Journey pointed out that this is just a convention and not all Apache projects follow it. Since we would like DataFu to graduate sometime soon it would be good to clarify what the requirements are on package naming conventions before we do a release. Thoughts? Thanks, Matt Current statement on Incubator website http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation) then later. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/ -- Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jur...@gmail.com datasyndrome.com -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: apache package naming convention
There is no reason to change the packages. Kafka has done fine without doing so, as has been OpenNLP. There are no commercial or vendor concerns. There is no legal requirement to do so. It's a purely technical issue (how Java happens to organize code). -jakob On 7 August 2015 at 21:41, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: By that notion, practically all incoming projects would be in non org.apache namespaces, and that would be a different kind of detrimental situation. So, my(!) general recommendation has been; for any releases that maintain 100% compatibility, keep the namespace as before. But as soon as a major (1.x - 2.0) release is made, that the namespace is changing with it. Doing a search/replace for s/import datafu/import org.apache.datafu across N files (and you can provide the script) is not a big deal compared to whatever other compatibility-breaking changes that are introduced in the major upgrade. But as Luciano says; The sooner, the better, as fewer people are impacted. Niclas On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Russell Jurney russell.jur...@gmail.com wrote: Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat, and the change would be breaking. On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Hi all, Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic: For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.* namespace. This has been the naming convention since the DataFu project started in 2010. Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation process, the topic has come up of moving all of the classes into a org.apache.datafu.* namespace. This was first discussed in January 2014 (see DATAFU-7) and most recently again in the past couple weeks. The consensus at the time last year was that it would be a huge pain for users and not worth the cost. It would break any script out there currently using DataFu. Also Jakob Homan and Russell Journey pointed out that this is just a convention and not all Apache projects follow it. Since we would like DataFu to graduate sometime soon it would be good to clarify what the requirements are on package naming conventions before we do a release. Thoughts? Thanks, Matt Current statement on Incubator website http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation) then later. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/ -- Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jur...@gmail.com datasyndrome.com -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache package naming convention
Jakob, I was curious about you statement about Kafka so I went and looked. I only looked at the client code, but it appears that it is all under org.apache.kafka. Can you say more about what you meant by Kafka has done fine without doing so? On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote: There is no reason to change the packages. Kafka has done fine without doing so, as has been OpenNLP. There are no commercial or vendor concerns. There is no legal requirement to do so. It's a purely technical issue (how Java happens to organize code). -jakob On 7 August 2015 at 21:41, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: By that notion, practically all incoming projects would be in non org.apache namespaces, and that would be a different kind of detrimental situation. So, my(!) general recommendation has been; for any releases that maintain 100% compatibility, keep the namespace as before. But as soon as a major (1.x - 2.0) release is made, that the namespace is changing with it. Doing a search/replace for s/import datafu/import org.apache.datafu across N files (and you can provide the script) is not a big deal compared to whatever other compatibility-breaking changes that are introduced in the major upgrade. But as Luciano says; The sooner, the better, as fewer people are impacted. Niclas On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Russell Jurney russell.jur...@gmail.com wrote: Leave it datafu. The normal way of doing Java namespaces is terrible bloat, and the change would be breaking. On Friday, August 7, 2015, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Matthew Hayes matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Hi all, Roman Shaposhnik suggested I open a discussion on the following topic: For Apache DataFu, all of the Java classes are declared in a datafu.* namespace. This has been the naming convention since the DataFu project started in 2010. Since DataFu became part of the Apache incubation process, the topic has come up of moving all of the classes into a org.apache.datafu.* namespace. This was first discussed in January 2014 (see DATAFU-7) and most recently again in the past couple weeks. The consensus at the time last year was that it would be a huge pain for users and not worth the cost. It would break any script out there currently using DataFu. Also Jakob Homan and Russell Journey pointed out that this is just a convention and not all Apache projects follow it. Since we would like DataFu to graduate sometime soon it would be good to clarify what the requirements are on package naming conventions before we do a release. Thoughts? Thanks, Matt Current statement on Incubator website http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging But, if DataFu will do the repackaging, better sooner (before graduation) then later. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/ -- Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney russell.jur...@gmail.com datasyndrome.com -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
