On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at
Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On the other hand, somebody taking said snapshot and releasing it under the
name Project BOO, licensed under the ALv2. Is something that both the ALv2
license AND our trademark policy are totally fine with.
What if (not a fictional example; a real case) the code is
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
[Failing at dealing with this cross-posted and variously-branched discussion
on two lists,
so I am doing it too. Also OT with respect to Ross's declaration, but it has
to do with the
fact that release is
Fascinating discussion, who started this thread? ;-)
On a more serious note (actually, very serious one):
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Ross Gardler
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined
work
is only licensed as
On Aug 21, 2015 1:54 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
wrote:
...
So, in the strictest sense, distributions that make minor changes for
their distribution should call it Bar powered by Apache Foo in order to
On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Lets just imagine if Jim, VP Legal is actually correct in his
On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
I want to fix FUD before it infests the rafters and
On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Are you sure? When you have a public source
They do? This is the statement of the VP Legal, so whether it is right or
wrong, here at the ASF we attempt to honor the 'spirit' of the policy of
other licensors when we use their code, and we would hope others would
honor the 'spirit' of our policies here. It that is the underlying
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at
On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks.
Perhaps I could try to return it there?
If a distro takes a
Jim already addressed this in an overlapping email. I tried to address it but
it seems quibbling over individual words describing process was more important
than understanding the intended message. So let me try again, this time using
the corrected words in my email and adding Jim's further
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
[Failing at dealing with this cross-posted and variously-branched discussion on
two lists, so I am doing it too. Also OT with respect to Ross's declaration,
but it has to do with the fact that release is not so well distinguished as
one might hope.]
Minor nit? #1:
Generally, because of what
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
wrote:
...
So, in the strictest sense, distributions that make minor changes for
their distribution should call it Bar powered by Apache Foo in order to
differentiate it from an official release of the foundation. In the
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Lets just imagine if Jim, VP Legal is actually correct in his
interpretation, and that there are no AL 2.0 licenses applicable to our
source code
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
I want to fix FUD before it infests the rafters and subfloor. I really
have never read something so stupid or ill phrased...
Every
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
ICLA/CCLA,
nothing could be further from the truth.
Committers sometimes make mistakes.
On Aug 20, 2015 8:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented
a
'kick-in'
This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks.
Perhaps I could try to return it there?
If a distro takes a release of Apache X, compiles it with minimal changes
that adapt it to the environment, and distributes it, I believe that it's a
fine thing for them to call it simple
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I do not agree with this interpretation when viewed from a legal angle
(though I do agree from a trademark angle). I have a feeling that the root
of my disagreement is the same as the root of Jim's earlier
I think it is somewhat amusing, that this is actually discussed ~20years
after Apache group is formed. A newcomer must be flabbergasted that this
isn't clear cut by now... ;-)
// Niclas
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I do not agree with this
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks.
Perhaps I could try to return it there?
If a distro takes a release of Apache X, compiles it with minimal changes
that adapt it to the
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is
offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license
declaration attached to the project.
No, the license is that which was granted
It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is
offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license
declaration attached to the project.
This makes sense to me, presuming that we still agree that the license
declaration (header or license file) is the best
AFAIK a SNAPSHOT has not been voted on and is therefore not a formal
ASF release.
So for example this would cover CI builds that deploy jars to the ASF
Maven SNAPSHOT repo.
On 20 August 2015 at 23:33, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gavin McDonald
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
ICLA/CCLA,
nothing could
I do not agree with this interpretation when viewed from a legal angle (though
I do agree from a trademark angle). I have a feeling that the root of my
disagreement is the same as the root of Jim's earlier statement (though I may
be mistaken).
There are two points of IP due diligence in an
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Are you sure? When you have a public source control repo, with a
LICENSE file at the top, I would think that this counts as a legal
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
can declare something as a release.
On Aug 6, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
Hi!
while answering a question on
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Are you sure? When you have a public source control
On 20 Aug 2015, at 2:52 pm, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Interesting.
So what do we do about all the rc1|rc2|rcx ,alphas, betas and Milestone
‘releases’ that
are on our official mirrors
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:
So what do we do about all the rc1|rc2|rcx ,alphas, betas and Milestone
‘releases’ that are on our official mirrors right now?
(Because they would have been voted on as a ‘’release’’ for the projects to
put them
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
On 8/16/15 4:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
On 8/7/15 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Bill,
So I can release Niclas Hadoop platform, based on
On 8/16/15 4:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
On 8/7/15 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman 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
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
On 8/7/15 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman 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...
No, you cannot. See our
On 8/7/15 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman 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...
No, you cannot. See our actual trademark policy:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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:
44 matches
Mail list logo
