On Wednesday 23 January 2008 04:27, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I agree with the general point about the legality of using the
> org.apache namespace. However, I think there is a significant issue
> here. People assume that org.apache code is from Apache. And the
> reasoning that its too much effort to
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> The legal committee has previously been tasked with a "fork" FAQ
> that would cover this and the PRC team is currently working on a
> "trademarks" FAQ that should also cover this.
And this is neither of those groups, nor have those other tasks been completed.
FWIW, your cla
Michael Wechner wrote:
> >If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
> >create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
> >be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
> >do so.
> believing you that there is no legal requir
Michael Wechner wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
do so.
believing you that there is n
Confirm that we were past the legal hurdles. Community was the issue
here with TSIK.
thanks,
dims
On Jan 23, 2008 1:50 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know anything about the legal side, but it would seem to me to
> > be quite unacceptable to publish new releases with o
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When forking Apache licensed code, one does _not_ need to change the
>> package name, or anything else in the source code. One arguably
>> shouldn't then re-publish the binaries or source as "Apache Foo" [1], but
>> the code itself can use the sam
J Aaron Farr wrote:
If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
do so.
believing you that there is no legal requirement (I a
> When forking Apache licensed code, one does _not_ need to change the
> package name, or anything else in the source code. One arguably
> shouldn't then re-publish the binaries or source as "Apache Foo" [1], but
> the code itself can use the same namespace.
> there is no legal requirement to [re
"Assaf Arkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/22/08, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I think the terminology in the subject is wrong.
>>
>> You are not "moving a failed incubation project." That project is dead.
>>
>> What you can do is to use the code in another project, and
On 1/23/08, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It seems that there are two discussions going on at the same time:
> >
> >1. Whether it is cool for people to do this.
> >2. Whether we should try to stop people from doing this.
> >
> > I am pretty sure that we all agree that it i
Hans Granqvist wrote:
> > I believe that the IP is tainted (and constrained) for TSIK, which is
why
> > it failed in the first place.
> No, it failed really because there weren't enough people interested
> and working on it. All the legal IP issues were cleared.
If that is the case, let's see if
Paul Fremantle wrote:
It seems that there are two discussions going on at the same time:
1. Whether it is cool for people to do this.
2. Whether we should try to stop people from doing this.
I am pretty sure that we all agree that it is not cool (1), so I wasn't
talking about this.
> It seems that there are two discussions going on at the same time:
>
>1. Whether it is cool for people to do this.
>2. Whether we should try to stop people from doing this.
>
> I am pretty sure that we all agree that it is not cool (1), so I wasn't
> talking about this.
> Regarding (2),
> But I believe that the IP is
> tainted (and constrained) for TSIK, which is why it failed in the first
> place.
No, it failed really because there weren't enough people interested
and working on it. All the legal IP issues were cleared.
-Hans
---
On 1/23/08, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Carman wrote:
> It seems that there are two discussions going on at the same time:
>
>1. Whether it is cool for people to do this.
>2. Whether we should try to stop people from doing this.
>
> I am pretty sure that we all agree
> Now, if we, with 2.8, have to change to org.apache.*, we will
> obviously break compatibility with any of the existing plugins.
> Any advice or policies?
We ought to have this as an FAQ. Roller and Wicket, for example, had to
deal with it, amongst others.
--- Noel
-
> I don't know anything about the legal side, but it would seem to me to
> be quite unacceptable to publish new releases with org.apache.*
> namespace. That namespace belongs to the ASF, and users will expect that
> anything published under that namespace has the approval of the ASF.
Correct, IMO.
James Carman wrote:
On 1/23/08, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Carman wrote:
I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
org.apache.*package, they assume that it's from the ASF.
On 1/23/08, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The main point in this discussion is that not changing the package
> > names is not illegal, but it's definitely uncool and goes against a
> > pretty well adhered to convention.
> +1
>
> > Legally, all we can do is ask them
> > to change the
> The main point in this discussion is that not changing the package
> names is not illegal, but it's definitely uncool and goes against a
> pretty well adhered to convention.
+1
> Legally, all we can do is ask them
> to change the package names and if they don't, there's nothing we can
> do (at l
On 1/23/08, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Carman wrote:
> > I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
> > package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
> > org.apache.*package, they assume that it's from the ASF. Leaving it
> > in
James Carman wrote:
I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
org.apache.*package, they assume that it's from the ASF. Leaving it
in an
ASF-namespaced package has two problems here:
1. People will assum
Another point you might want to consider is what perception folks will have
of your code if they want to use it. I can't speak for everyone
(obviously), but I know that if I wanted to use a piece of software and I
was downloading it from Sourceforge or something and it had the
org.apache.*package
I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
org.apache.*package, they assume that it's from the ASF. Leaving it
in an
ASF-namespaced package has two problems here:
1. People will assume that it's ASF code.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 11:26 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton schrieb:
On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall
Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
weight around.
On Jan 23, 2008 11:26 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton schrieb:
> > On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Niall
> >>
> >> Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
> >> weight around.
> >>
> >
> > Well y
Niall Pemberton schrieb:
> On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Niall
>>
>> Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
>> weight around.
>>
>
> Well you were talking about "need to change the package name" and
> "rigorous protecti
On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall
>
> Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
> weight around.
Well you were talking about "need to change the package name" and
"rigorous protection" rather than some kind of "hey we'd prefer
it.
Janne Jalkanen schrieb:
>> very much agreed and I guess if one can show a migration path (as I
>> have suggested) which doesn't break too much, then I think nobody
>> should mind renaming the packages.
>>
>> But with the ASF member hat on I think the package org.apache.* is
>> something which the
very much agreed and I guess if one can show a migration path (as I
have suggested) which doesn't break too much, then I think nobody
should mind renaming the packages.
But with the ASF member hat on I think the package org.apache.*
is something which the ASF should protect, just as the l
Assaf
Firstly lets place this in context - the code has never had a release
AFAIK. So anyone relying on this is relying on code with no legal
standing from Apache.
Secondly, if someone moves from an Apache codebase to a forked
codebase, then that should be a deliberate action with a real purpose.
Michael Wechner schrieb:
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
>> I agree with the general point about the legality of using the
>> org.apache namespace. However, I think there is a significant issue
>> here. People assume that org.apache code is from Apache.
>>
>
>
> agreed. Hence I would also suggest that wh
Paul Fremantle wrote:
Niall
Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
weight around.
very much agreed and I guess if one can show a migration path (as I have
suggested) which doesn't break too much, then I think nobody should mind
renaming the packages.
But w
Niall
Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
weight around.
Paul
On Jan 22, 2008 8:50 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 8:27 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree with the general point about the legality of using t
On Jan 22, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
What you can't do is to use the Apache brand for another project,
meaning to use the package names including apache if it's not an
Apache project.
I thought the whole point of the AL was that pepople could take code
away and do whatever the
On 1/22/08, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree with the general point about the legality of using the
> org.apache namespace. However, I think there is a significant issue
> here. People assume that org.apache code is from Apache. And the
> reasoning that its too much effort to r
On Jan 22, 2008 8:27 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with the general point about the legality of using the
> org.apache namespace. However, I think there is a significant issue
> here. People assume that org.apache code is from Apache. And the
> reasoning that its too much
Paul Fremantle wrote:
I agree with the general point about the legality of using the
org.apache namespace. However, I think there is a significant issue
here. People assume that org.apache code is from Apache.
agreed. Hence I would also suggest that when moving the code that the
package nam
I agree with the general point about the legality of using the
org.apache namespace. However, I think there is a significant issue
here. People assume that org.apache code is from Apache. And the
reasoning that its too much effort to rename is frankly wrong. Even
sed could do a decent job and proba
On Jan 22, 2008 6:23 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the terminology in the subject is wrong.
>
> You are not "moving a failed incubation project." That project is dead.
>
> What you can do is to use the code in another project, and assume all
> responsibility to verify tha
On 1/22/08, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the terminology in the subject is wrong.
>
> You are not "moving a failed incubation project." That project is dead.
>
> What you can do is to use the code in another project, and assume all
> responsibility to verify that the licen
On 1/22/08, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the terminology in the subject is wrong.
>
> You are not "moving a failed incubation project." That project is dead.
>
> What you can do is to use the code in another project, and assume all
> responsibility to verify that the licen
Hi folks,
IIRC, the AL says to not use the name of Apache for
advertising the product. It doesn't say anything
about package names. There is other code out there
that uses org.apache namespaces, to provide
compatibility with Commons Logging for example.
There is also non-Apache code in org.apache
I think the terminology in the subject is wrong.
You are not "moving a failed incubation project." That project is dead.
What you can do is to use the code in another project, and assume all
responsibility to verify that the license in the code is correct.
What you can't do is to use the Apa
impact?
> Can we consider that the sources are already distributed under AL?
>
> Please could you clarify this?
>
> Gilles
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Carl Trieloff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: mardi 22 janvier 2008 16:13
>> To:
ieloff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: mardi 22 janvier 2008 16:13
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: moving a failed incubation project
>
>
> agree that rename is required.
> Carl.
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > Hans
> >
> > My understa
agree that rename is required.
Carl.
Paul Fremantle wrote:
Hans
My understanding is that you do need to change the package names, but
I'd like to see who else chimes in here.
Any decent Java IDE will rename the packages and fix up the code
without too much hassle.
Paul
On 1/22/08, Hans Gran
Hans
My understanding is that you do need to change the package names, but
I'd like to see who else chimes in here.
Any decent Java IDE will rename the packages and fix up the code
without too much hassle.
Paul
On 1/22/08, Hans Granqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want to move a fail
48 matches
Mail list logo
