> > > > guacamole/guacamole is something anyone in the Guacamole PPMC controls, > including myself. You should have access, too, as all committers are > implicitly PPMC within Guacamole. If not, that's an oversight we should > correct. > > See: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b345e6c72629e3bf79c3e1243c6290 > 073c3cf6f3901aa100a649f2a2@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E >
Good to know. > > > I assume glyptodon/guacamole is yours? >> >> > Not really. "glyptodon/guacamole" is Glyptodon's, and while I'm certainly > affiliated with Glyptodon, I'm not equal to it. For the health of the > project, I refuse to wear my Glyptodon hat when doing anything within the > Guacamole community. Here, I am strictly a committer on the Guacamole > project and a member of its PPMC. > Makes sense. > > If the question here is whether third-party distribution of Guacamole is > harmful, my personal view is that it isn't, and that part of the philosophy > of the Apache Way is to embrace such distribution. It is expected (and > beneficial) that third parties will package and distribute Guacamole, > including via Docker images. Quickly checking Docker Hub, I find at least > 15 pages of search results for Docker images containing Guacamole: > > https://hub.docker.com/search/?isAutomated=0&isOfficial=0&; > page=1&pullCount=0&q=guacamole&starCount=0 > > To me, that's a good sign. > I totally agree. > > If there is a trademark/branding/licensing issue, however, that would be a > different matter and should definitely be corrected ASAP. > I think your answers above clear up some of the confusion - I was just trying to clarify things to understand if the original suggestion - to make sure only guacamole/guacamole had the newer versions (vs. glyptodon/guacamole) - made sense. For the purposes of this discussion glyptodon/guacamole is a "third party" to the Guacamole Project, so I definitely see and agree with your point - the Project should not worry about trying to control/sanitize/dictate/etc. what is posted there. -Nick
