You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> on 2015/08/07 02:50:26 UTC
What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
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?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
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 <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 there in the first place)
>
> "Release" means different things in different contexts. An ASF
> release is a product that a PMC has vetted to meet ASF release
> standards (builds from source, APL2 licensed) and has made available
> to end-users in our download services. This use of "release" deals
> with legal and "can-be-modified" promises made to the end-user.
>
> Various ASF projects also use "release" to mean something different --
> a community-approved product that has a certain API and typically has
> no known issues. This use of "release" generally deals with technical
> aspects of the project, such as stability and reliability.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
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 <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 there in the first place)
>
> "Release" means different things in different contexts. An ASF
> release is a product that a PMC has vetted to meet ASF release
> standards (builds from source, APL2 licensed) and has made available
> to end-users in our download services. This use of "release" deals
> with legal and "can-be-modified" promises made to the end-user.
>
> Various ASF projects also use "release" to mean something different --
> a community-approved product that has a certain API and typically has
> no known issues. This use of "release" generally deals with technical
> aspects of the project, such as stability and reliability.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
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 there in the first place)
"Release" means different things in different contexts. An ASF
release is a product that a PMC has vetted to meet ASF release
standards (builds from source, APL2 licensed) and has made available
to end-users in our download services. This use of "release" deals
with legal and "can-be-modified" promises made to the end-user.
Various ASF projects also use "release" to mean something different --
a community-approved product that has a certain API and typically has
no known issues. This use of "release" generally deals with technical
aspects of the project, such as stability and reliability.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
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 there in the first place)
"Release" means different things in different contexts. An ASF
release is a product that a PMC has vetted to meet ASF release
standards (builds from source, APL2 licensed) and has made available
to end-users in our download services. This use of "release" deals
with legal and "can-be-modified" promises made to the end-user.
Various ASF projects also use "release" to mean something different --
a community-approved product that has a certain API and typically has
no known issues. This use of "release" generally deals with technical
aspects of the project, such as stability and reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> On 20 Aug 2015, at 2:52 pm, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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 right now?
(Because they would have been voted on as a ‘’release’’ for the projects to put them there
in the first place)
(Or are all those different to Snapshots somehow?)
Gav…
> 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 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?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Gav...
( ( (
( )\ ) )\ ) )\ ) ( ) )
)\ (()/((()/( (()/( )\ ) ( ) ( /( ( ( ( /( ( ( (
((((_)( /(_))/(_)) /(_)) ( (()/( )( ( /( ( )\()))( ))\ ( )\()) ))\ )( ))\
)\ _ )\ (_)) (_))_| (_)) )\ ) /(_))(()\ )(_)) )\ (_))/(()\ /((_) )\ (_))/ /((_)(()\ /((_)
(_)_\(_)/ __|| |_ |_ _| _(_/((_) _| ((_)((_)_ ((_)| |_ ((_)(_))( ((_)| |_ (_))( ((_)(_))
/ _ \ \__ \| __| | | | ' \))| _|| '_|/ _` |(_-<| _|| '_|| || |/ _| | _|| || || '_|/ -_)
/_/ \_\ |___/|_| |___||_||_| |_| |_| \__,_|/__/ \__||_| \_,_|\__| \__| \_,_||_| \___|
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@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 not so well distinguished as one might hope.]
>
> Minor nit? #1:
>
> Generally, because of what is seen in the repository in terms of LICENSE and
> NOTICE placement, it appears to apply to everything at and below that point in
> the repository. A casual observer cannot tell that there is an important ceremonial
> distinction with regard to using the archived packaging of an approved Apache Release.
I was thinking exactly that while reading the thread. Now, to be fair,
most of the
time statements made by both of these are correct. I actually haven't seen that
much licensing issues with TLP during release cycles.
> Not-so-minor nit? #2:
>
> "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
> under one or more contributor license agreements.
> See the NOTICE file **distributed** with this work
> for additional information regarding copyright
> ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under
> the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License')" at
> the very top of many individual files in typical ASF
> Project repositories.
Yup. That goes back to the clarification I've just requested
from Ross. 'cuz I agree -- I can see it being interpreted
in more than one way.
> Techno-legal nit? #3:
>
> From <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>:
>
> "You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients
> of software **distributed** by the Foundation a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
> irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare
> derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
> sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such
> derivative works."
>
> ** emphasis mine in both places
Great point. I haven't connected the dots with ICLAs myself,
but it totally makes sense to talk about ICLA since it is the
document that governs the ingest point of new contributions.
> Avoiding the nit-pickers by picking more nit? #4
>
> A while back, because I was concerned that some user of a contribution of mine might be trapped in a hair splitting between "distribution," non-distribution, and "released" I made a supplemental declaration. I provided a copy to the Secretary of the Foundation on 2013-03-08.
>
> This broader statement grants to **all parties obtaining** any past or future ASF **contribution** of mine effectively the same copyright license granted under the iCLA without the condition that it be distributed by the Foundation. You can see it in all of its glory at <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>. This is not the same as an ALv2 license, but it basically gives to all of those parties the same terms as provided to the ASF under the iCLA (technically not an ALv2 license either).
>
> I have made a comparable declaration by any contribution I might make to LibreOffice. I have *not* provided LibreOffice with the dual MPL-LGPL license declaration they tend to request. (The receipt of that declaration has not been acknowledged, but I stand behind it.)
Interesting! Thanks for the pointer.
Thanks,
Roman.
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roya Abdi <ra...@gmail.com>.
a<bar>
در تاریخ ۲۱ اوت ۲۰۱۵ ۲۳:۰۷، "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
نوشت:
> [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 is seen in the repository in terms of LICENSE
> and NOTICE placement, it appears to apply to everything at and below that
> point in the repository. A casual observer cannot tell that there is an
> important ceremonial distinction with regard to using the archived
> packaging of an approved Apache Release.
>
> Not-so-minor nit? #2:
>
> "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
> under one or more contributor license agreements.
> See the NOTICE file **distributed** with this work
> for additional information regarding copyright
> ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under
> the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License')" at
> the very top of many individual files in typical ASF
> Project repositories.
>
> Techno-legal nit? #3:
>
> From <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>:
>
> "You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients
> of software **distributed** by the Foundation a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
> irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare
> derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
> sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such
> derivative works."
>
> ** emphasis mine in both places
>
> Avoiding the nit-pickers by picking more nit? #4
>
> A while back, because I was concerned that some user of a contribution of
> mine might be trapped in a hair splitting between "distribution,"
> non-distribution, and "released" I made a supplemental declaration. I
> provided a copy to the Secretary of the Foundation on 2013-03-08.
>
> This broader statement grants to **all parties obtaining** any past or
> future ASF **contribution** of mine effectively the same copyright license
> granted under the iCLA without the condition that it be distributed by the
> Foundation. You can see it in all of its glory at <
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>.
> This is not the same as an ALv2 license, but it basically gives to all of
> those parties the same terms as provided to the ASF under the iCLA
> (technically not an ALv2 license either).
>
> I have made a comparable declaration by any contribution I might make to
> LibreOffice. I have *not* provided LibreOffice with the dual MPL-LGPL
> license declaration they tend to request. (The receipt of that declaration
> has not been acknowledged, but I stand behind it.)
>
> (Le sigh)
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 09:14
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That
> combined work is only licensed as such when the foundation formally
> approves it. This happens when the PMC members indicate that, to the best
> of their knowledge, a specified combined work (a source package) conforms
> with the legal and policy expectations of ask source code included (both
> ours and upstream).
>
> Individual contributions in our source repository are under ALv2. These
> are approved as such, through a best effort analysis, at the point of
> contribution. [ ... ]
>
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@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 not so well distinguished as one might hope.]
>
> Minor nit? #1:
>
> Generally, because of what is seen in the repository in terms of LICENSE and
> NOTICE placement, it appears to apply to everything at and below that point in
> the repository. A casual observer cannot tell that there is an important ceremonial
> distinction with regard to using the archived packaging of an approved Apache Release.
I was thinking exactly that while reading the thread. Now, to be fair,
most of the
time statements made by both of these are correct. I actually haven't seen that
much licensing issues with TLP during release cycles.
> Not-so-minor nit? #2:
>
> "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
> under one or more contributor license agreements.
> See the NOTICE file **distributed** with this work
> for additional information regarding copyright
> ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under
> the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License')" at
> the very top of many individual files in typical ASF
> Project repositories.
Yup. That goes back to the clarification I've just requested
from Ross. 'cuz I agree -- I can see it being interpreted
in more than one way.
> Techno-legal nit? #3:
>
> From <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>:
>
> "You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients
> of software **distributed** by the Foundation a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
> irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare
> derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
> sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such
> derivative works."
>
> ** emphasis mine in both places
Great point. I haven't connected the dots with ICLAs myself,
but it totally makes sense to talk about ICLA since it is the
document that governs the ingest point of new contributions.
> Avoiding the nit-pickers by picking more nit? #4
>
> A while back, because I was concerned that some user of a contribution of mine might be trapped in a hair splitting between "distribution," non-distribution, and "released" I made a supplemental declaration. I provided a copy to the Secretary of the Foundation on 2013-03-08.
>
> This broader statement grants to **all parties obtaining** any past or future ASF **contribution** of mine effectively the same copyright license granted under the iCLA without the condition that it be distributed by the Foundation. You can see it in all of its glory at <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>. This is not the same as an ALv2 license, but it basically gives to all of those parties the same terms as provided to the ASF under the iCLA (technically not an ALv2 license either).
>
> I have made a comparable declaration by any contribution I might make to LibreOffice. I have *not* provided LibreOffice with the dual MPL-LGPL license declaration they tend to request. (The receipt of that declaration has not been acknowledged, but I stand behind it.)
Interesting! Thanks for the pointer.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
[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 is seen in the repository in terms of LICENSE and NOTICE placement, it appears to apply to everything at and below that point in the repository. A casual observer cannot tell that there is an important ceremonial distinction with regard to using the archived packaging of an approved Apache Release.
Not-so-minor nit? #2:
"Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
under one or more contributor license agreements.
See the NOTICE file **distributed** with this work
for additional information regarding copyright
ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under
the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License')" at
the very top of many individual files in typical ASF
Project repositories.
Techno-legal nit? #3:
From <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>:
"You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients
of software **distributed** by the Foundation a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare
derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such
derivative works."
** emphasis mine in both places
Avoiding the nit-pickers by picking more nit? #4
A while back, because I was concerned that some user of a contribution of mine might be trapped in a hair splitting between "distribution," non-distribution, and "released" I made a supplemental declaration. I provided a copy to the Secretary of the Foundation on 2013-03-08.
This broader statement grants to **all parties obtaining** any past or future ASF **contribution** of mine effectively the same copyright license granted under the iCLA without the condition that it be distributed by the Foundation. You can see it in all of its glory at <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>. This is not the same as an ALv2 license, but it basically gives to all of those parties the same terms as provided to the ASF under the iCLA (technically not an ALv2 license either).
I have made a comparable declaration by any contribution I might make to LibreOffice. I have *not* provided LibreOffice with the dual MPL-LGPL license declaration they tend to request. (The receipt of that declaration has not been acknowledged, but I stand behind it.)
(Le sigh)
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 09:14
To: general@incubator.apache.org; ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
[ ... ]
Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined work is only licensed as such when the foundation formally approves it. This happens when the PMC members indicate that, to the best of their knowledge, a specified combined work (a source package) conforms with the legal and policy expectations of ask source code included (both ours and upstream).
Individual contributions in our source repository are under ALv2. These are approved as such, through a best effort analysis, at the point of contribution. [ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
[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 is seen in the repository in terms of LICENSE and NOTICE placement, it appears to apply to everything at and below that point in the repository. A casual observer cannot tell that there is an important ceremonial distinction with regard to using the archived packaging of an approved Apache Release.
Not-so-minor nit? #2:
"Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
under one or more contributor license agreements.
See the NOTICE file **distributed** with this work
for additional information regarding copyright
ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under
the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License')" at
the very top of many individual files in typical ASF
Project repositories.
Techno-legal nit? #3:
From <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>:
"You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients
of software **distributed** by the Foundation a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare
derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such
derivative works."
** emphasis mine in both places
Avoiding the nit-pickers by picking more nit? #4
A while back, because I was concerned that some user of a contribution of mine might be trapped in a hair splitting between "distribution," non-distribution, and "released" I made a supplemental declaration. I provided a copy to the Secretary of the Foundation on 2013-03-08.
This broader statement grants to **all parties obtaining** any past or future ASF **contribution** of mine effectively the same copyright license granted under the iCLA without the condition that it be distributed by the Foundation. You can see it in all of its glory at <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>. This is not the same as an ALv2 license, but it basically gives to all of those parties the same terms as provided to the ASF under the iCLA (technically not an ALv2 license either).
I have made a comparable declaration by any contribution I might make to LibreOffice. I have *not* provided LibreOffice with the dual MPL-LGPL license declaration they tend to request. (The receipt of that declaration has not been acknowledged, but I stand behind it.)
(Le sigh)
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 09:14
To: general@incubator.apache.org; ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
[ ... ]
Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined work is only licensed as such when the foundation formally approves it. This happens when the PMC members indicate that, to the best of their knowledge, a specified combined work (a source package) conforms with the legal and policy expectations of ask source code included (both ours and upstream).
Individual contributions in our source repository are under ALv2. These are approved as such, through a best effort analysis, at the point of contribution. [ ... ]
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Well, let's assume that someone donated something to the ASF
via the software grant.
There is nothing in the grant itself which turns the donation
from whatever it *was* licensed under *to* the ALv2. So if the
donation is placed, as-is, under the ASF repo, it still, as of yet,
has not been relicensed. So, if I donate FooBarski to the ASF via the
s/w grant (https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt),
and it is GPLv3, and is then imported bit-for-bit under the
ASF repo, even though that copy is under the grant, it is still
under the GPLv3. It is only when it is re-licensed (which is what
the grant allows) does it go as ALv2.
Many podlings have this exact issue where there exists in the ASF
repo files and code which is not ALv2, and that "status" it due to
its markings as such. Those files are then re-licensed or even
removed, but the very fact that you can retrieve a file from the
ASF repo itself is not sufficient to ensure that it is ALv2.
> On Aug 25, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The legal status of a work is not determined by the markings on it. If
> someone granted a license to the ASF, they granted a license. If a
> third party jumps the gun and grabs a copy, and complies with the
> situation, they're fine, including ripping out the obsolete markings
> for themselves.
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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 taken from a
>> branch that comes from a recent code donation and source headers are still
>> in the process of being updated to comply with the donation? Waiting for
>> that code to be included in a formal release for sure solves the problem.
>> But if one doesn't want to wait, I wouldn't know what to suggest.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The legal status of a work is not determined by the markings on it. If
> someone granted a license to the ASF, they granted a license. If a
> third party jumps the gun and grabs a copy, and complies with the
> situation, they're fine, including ripping out the obsolete markings
> for themselves.
I agree with Benson here. That said I'm still not clear where ASF stands
on "distributed" vs. "released" wording. FWIW: I liked Ross' answer a
few emails ago. That said, there's a separate thread on legal-discss@
that will hopefully clarify this once and for all.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
The legal status of a work is not determined by the markings on it. If
someone granted a license to the ASF, they granted a license. If a
third party jumps the gun and grabs a copy, and complies with the
situation, they're fine, including ripping out the obsolete markings
for themselves.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 taken from a
> branch that comes from a recent code donation and source headers are still
> in the process of being updated to comply with the donation? Waiting for
> that code to be included in a formal release for sure solves the problem.
> But if one doesn't want to wait, I wouldn't know what to suggest.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
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 taken from a
branch that comes from a recent code donation and source headers are
still in the process of being updated to comply with the donation?
Waiting for that code to be included in a formal release for sure solves
the problem. But if one doesn't want to wait, I wouldn't know what to
suggest.
Regards,
Andrea.
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
In my opinion, yes.
I reserve the right to change my mind based on further input from others ;-)
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
Sent: 8/25/2015 12:32 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: ComDev<ma...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
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
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined work
> is only licensed as such when the foundation formally approves it.
So let me spell one thing explicitly here and see if we all agree.
Here's what it is:
even though from a purely licensing standpoint a content of a source code repo
(a snapshot but NOT in a Maven sense) most of the time happens to be licensed
under ALv2 (verification at the point of contribution) we, as a
foundation, refuse
the right to ANYBODY to call it a release of Apache FOO. We use our trademark
power for that. It has nothing to do with the license itself.
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.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
In my opinion, yes.
I reserve the right to change my mind based on further input from others ;-)
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
Sent: 8/25/2015 12:32 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: ComDev<ma...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
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
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined work
> is only licensed as such when the foundation formally approves it.
So let me spell one thing explicitly here and see if we all agree.
Here's what it is:
even though from a purely licensing standpoint a content of a source code repo
(a snapshot but NOT in a Maven sense) most of the time happens to be licensed
under ALv2 (verification at the point of contribution) we, as a
foundation, refuse
the right to ANYBODY to call it a release of Apache FOO. We use our trademark
power for that. It has nothing to do with the license itself.
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.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
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 taken from a
branch that comes from a recent code donation and source headers are
still in the process of being updated to comply with the donation?
Waiting for that code to be included in a formal release for sure solves
the problem. But if one doesn't want to wait, I wouldn't know what to
suggest.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
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
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined work
> is only licensed as such when the foundation formally approves it.
So let me spell one thing explicitly here and see if we all agree.
Here's what it is:
even though from a purely licensing standpoint a content of a source code repo
(a snapshot but NOT in a Maven sense) most of the time happens to be licensed
under ALv2 (verification at the point of contribution) we, as a
foundation, refuse
the right to ANYBODY to call it a release of Apache FOO. We use our trademark
power for that. It has nothing to do with the license itself.
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.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
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
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined work
> is only licensed as such when the foundation formally approves it.
So let me spell one thing explicitly here and see if we all agree.
Here's what it is:
even though from a purely licensing standpoint a content of a source code repo
(a snapshot but NOT in a Maven sense) most of the time happens to be licensed
under ALv2 (verification at the point of contribution) we, as a
foundation, refuse
the right to ANYBODY to call it a release of Apache FOO. We use our trademark
power for that. It has nothing to do with the license itself.
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.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
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 clarifications.
Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined work is only licensed as such when the foundation formally approves it. This happens when the PMC members indicate that, to the best of their knowledge, a specified combined work (a source package) conforms with the legal and policy expectations of ask source code included (both ours and upstream).
Individual contributions in our source repository are under ALv2. These are approved as such, through a best effort analysis, at the point of contribution. However, this thread is not about individual contributions it is about releases. Therefore this point is not relevant to the question asked, only the previous paragraph concerning releases of combined works is important for the question in the subject line.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: William A Rowe Jr<ma...@rowe-clan.net>
Sent: 8/21/2015 9:01 AM
To: ComDev<ma...@community.apache.org>
Cc: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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" <ji...@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 contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even
> contributing
> > it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
> > etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly
> what
> > licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
> > base at {URL}.)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
> >> can declare something as a release.
> >
> > There we agree :)
>
> Please reread what was said... We are talking *releases* here.
> Making something publicly available is NOT A RELEASE. It may be
> under a license, but is IS NOT A RELEASE.
>
I reread what you wrote,
> A snapshot is not a release.
We know this and agree on this, and you just responded to the obvious but
failed to address the second half of your statement.
> Licenses "kick in" at distribution/release.
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
assumption, that the code is not licensed by the ASF until a formal release
occurs, then we need to revisit the many implications of that philosophy.
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
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 clarifications.
Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined work is only licensed as such when the foundation formally approves it. This happens when the PMC members indicate that, to the best of their knowledge, a specified combined work (a source package) conforms with the legal and policy expectations of ask source code included (both ours and upstream).
Individual contributions in our source repository are under ALv2. These are approved as such, through a best effort analysis, at the point of contribution. However, this thread is not about individual contributions it is about releases. Therefore this point is not relevant to the question asked, only the previous paragraph concerning releases of combined works is important for the question in the subject line.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: William A Rowe Jr<ma...@rowe-clan.net>
Sent: 8/21/2015 9:01 AM
To: ComDev<ma...@community.apache.org>
Cc: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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" <ji...@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 contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even
> contributing
> > it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
> > etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly
> what
> > licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
> > base at {URL}.)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
> >> can declare something as a release.
> >
> > There we agree :)
>
> Please reread what was said... We are talking *releases* here.
> Making something publicly available is NOT A RELEASE. It may be
> under a license, but is IS NOT A RELEASE.
>
I reread what you wrote,
> A snapshot is not a release.
We know this and agree on this, and you just responded to the obvious but
failed to address the second half of your statement.
> Licenses "kick in" at distribution/release.
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
assumption, that the code is not licensed by the ASF until a formal release
occurs, then we need to revisit the many implications of that philosophy.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
>
> 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
> assumption, that the code is not licensed by the ASF until a formal release
> occurs, then we need to revisit the many implications of that philosophy.
I am no longer playing this game...
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
>
> 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
> assumption, that the code is not licensed by the ASF until a formal release
> occurs, then we need to revisit the many implications of that philosophy.
I am no longer playing this game...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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" <ji...@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 contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even
> contributing
> > it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
> > etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly
> what
> > licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
> > base at {URL}.)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
> >> can declare something as a release.
> >
> > There we agree :)
>
> Please reread what was said... We are talking *releases* here.
> Making something publicly available is NOT A RELEASE. It may be
> under a license, but is IS NOT A RELEASE.
>
I reread what you wrote,
> A snapshot is not a release.
We know this and agree on this, and you just responded to the obvious but
failed to address the second half of your statement.
> Licenses "kick in" at distribution/release.
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
assumption, that the code is not licensed by the ASF until a formal release
occurs, then we need to revisit the many implications of that philosophy.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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" <ji...@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 contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even
> contributing
> > it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
> > etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly
> what
> > licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
> > base at {URL}.)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
> >> can declare something as a release.
> >
> > There we agree :)
>
> Please reread what was said... We are talking *releases* here.
> Making something publicly available is NOT A RELEASE. It may be
> under a license, but is IS NOT A RELEASE.
>
I reread what you wrote,
> A snapshot is not a release.
We know this and agree on this, and you just responded to the obvious but
failed to address the second half of your statement.
> Licenses "kick in" at distribution/release.
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
assumption, that the code is not licensed by the ASF until a formal release
occurs, then we need to revisit the many implications of that philosophy.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> 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" <ji...@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 contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even contributing
> it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
> etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly what
> licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
> base at {URL}.)
>
> 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.
>
>> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
>> can declare something as a release.
>
> There we agree :)
Please reread what was said... We are talking *releases* here.
Making something publicly available is NOT A RELEASE. It may be
under a license, but is IS NOT A RELEASE.
For god's sake Bill, calm down.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> 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" <ji...@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 contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even contributing
> it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
> etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly what
> licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
> base at {URL}.)
>
> 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.
>
>> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
>> can declare something as a release.
>
> There we agree :)
Please reread what was said... We are talking *releases* here.
Making something publicly available is NOT A RELEASE. It may be
under a license, but is IS NOT A RELEASE.
For god's sake Bill, calm down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@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 statement
> (though I may be mistaken).
>
You've lost me already, but let's unwind this...
> There are two points of IP due diligence in an Apache project: At the
> point of contribution where the IP is validated by the committer and zero
> or more people who review the patch. The second phase of IP validation is
> at the point of release, where 3 our more PMC members validate that the
> foundation can legally release the code.
>
No, 3 or more PMC members make a best-effort that the code meets our
qualifications for release. Not being copyright and patent atty's, we
presume they did not cast their votes based on a legal definition of due
diligence.
> This means that taking a snapshot and building a release is *not*
> trademark-acceptable since the foundation, through the project PMC has not
> approved the release, therefore it is not an Apache release.
>
That much we agree on...
Only the ASF gets to say what is an ASF release and to do so requires a
> vote of the PMC. It has nothing to do with the number of changes made to
> what is in our repositories. It has everything to do with whether it's a
> release of the foundation.
>
Accurate...
> 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 real
> world the question is, from a legal point of view, do we care?
>
Here is where there is some room for interpretation, the httpd project can
probably be built more than 10^9 different ways (I extrapolate this from a
Chipotle drink cup that claimed the number of permutations of their
quick-service faux-tex-mex menu)
> (lets ignore the fact that some people vote on releases without doing
> proper validation, that's why we require 3 +1 votes, the assumption is that
> at least one of them did the job properly)
>
>
Define "Proper", I haven't read that
http://www.apache.org/dev/release/proper.html page yet.
You still didn't comment on the license under which the repository is
licensed, so this wasn't a terribly helpful post.
From: William A Rowe Jr<ma...@rowe-clan.net>
> Sent: 8/20/2015 7:17 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@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 environment, and distributes it, I believe that
> it's a
> > fine thing for them to call it simple Apache X, and acknowledge our
> marks.
> >
> > If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
> > it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them
> to
> > simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes
> a
> > regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
> > pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
> >
> > Further, if someone takes a snapshot (small 's') from source control and
> > starts from that, with minimal changes, I think that this would also be
> > trademark-acceptable, so long as they accurately describe what they did.
> >
> > The operative concept here, as Shane has taught it, is 'confusion in the
> > marketplace.' If some third party behaves so as to cause confusion as to
> > the identity of Apache X, there's a trademark issue. If not, not.
> >
>
> You summed this up to the best of my understanding ... +1. If our legal VP
> agrees (and retracts earlier FUD) it appears we are entirely in agreement.
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Aug 21, 2015 1:54 AM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@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 real
> > world the question is, from a legal point of view, do we care?
> >
>
> This is why Debian has "Iceweasel" instead of "Firefox".
A very useful point that Greg raises, where does the ASF want to draw that
line? C.f. for a good narrative;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@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 real
> world the question is, from a legal point of view, do we care?
>
This is why Debian has "Iceweasel" instead of "Firefox".
>...
Cheers,
-g
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> ...I think it is somewhat amusing, that this is actually discussed ~20years
> after Apache group is formed...
Amusing indeed ;-)
In theory http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html should be our Whole
Truth about releases. It probably answers most questions asked in this
thread.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
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 <Ro...@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 statement
> (though I may be mistaken).
>
> There are two points of IP due diligence in an Apache project: At the
> point of contribution where the IP is validated by the committer and zero
> or more people who review the patch. The second phase of IP validation is
> at the point of release, where 3 our more PMC members validate that the
> foundation can legally release the code.
>
> This means that taking a snapshot and building a release is *not*
> trademark-acceptable since the foundation, through the project PMC has not
> approved the release, therefore it is not an Apache release.
>
> Only the ASF gets to say what is an ASF release and to do so requires a
> vote of the PMC. It has nothing to do with the number of changes made to
> what is in our repositories. It has everything to do with whether it's a
> release of the foundation.
>
> 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 real
> world the question is, from a legal point of view, do we care?
>
> (lets ignore the fact that some people vote on releases without doing
> proper validation, that's why we require 3 +1 votes, the assumption is that
> at least one of them did the job properly)
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: William A Rowe Jr<ma...@rowe-clan.net>
> Sent: 8/20/2015 7:17 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@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 environment, and distributes it, I believe that
> it's a
> > fine thing for them to call it simple Apache X, and acknowledge our
> marks.
> >
> > If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
> > it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them
> to
> > simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes
> a
> > regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
> > pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
> >
> > Further, if someone takes a snapshot (small 's') from source control and
> > starts from that, with minimal changes, I think that this would also be
> > trademark-acceptable, so long as they accurately describe what they did.
> >
> > The operative concept here, as Shane has taught it, is 'confusion in the
> > marketplace.' If some third party behaves so as to cause confusion as to
> > the identity of Apache X, there's a trademark issue. If not, not.
> >
>
> You summed this up to the best of my understanding ... +1. If our legal VP
> agrees (and retracts earlier FUD) it appears we are entirely in agreement.
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
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 Apache project: At the point of contribution where the IP is validated by the committer and zero or more people who review the patch. The second phase of IP validation is at the point of release, where 3 our more PMC members validate that the foundation can legally release the code.
This means that taking a snapshot and building a release is *not* trademark-acceptable since the foundation, through the project PMC has not approved the release, therefore it is not an Apache release.
Only the ASF gets to say what is an ASF release and to do so requires a vote of the PMC. It has nothing to do with the number of changes made to what is in our repositories. It has everything to do with whether it's a release of the foundation.
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 real world the question is, from a legal point of view, do we care?
(lets ignore the fact that some people vote on releases without doing proper validation, that's why we require 3 +1 votes, the assumption is that at least one of them did the job properly)
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: William A Rowe Jr<ma...@rowe-clan.net>
Sent: 8/20/2015 7:17 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@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 environment, and distributes it, I believe that it's a
> fine thing for them to call it simple Apache X, and acknowledge our marks.
>
> If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
> it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them to
> simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes a
> regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
> pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
>
> Further, if someone takes a snapshot (small 's') from source control and
> starts from that, with minimal changes, I think that this would also be
> trademark-acceptable, so long as they accurately describe what they did.
>
> The operative concept here, as Shane has taught it, is 'confusion in the
> marketplace.' If some third party behaves so as to cause confusion as to
> the identity of Apache X, there's a trademark issue. If not, not.
>
You summed this up to the best of my understanding ... +1. If our legal VP
agrees (and retracts earlier FUD) it appears we are entirely in agreement.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> 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 <bi...@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 environment, and distributes it, I believe that it's a
>> fine thing for them to call it simple Apache X, and acknowledge our marks.
>>
>> If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
>> it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them to
>> simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes a
>> regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
>> pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
>>
>> Further, if someone takes a snapshot (small 's') from source control and
>> starts from that, with minimal changes, I think that this would also be
>> trademark-acceptable, so long as they accurately describe what they did.
>>
>> The operative concept here, as Shane has taught it, is 'confusion in the
>> marketplace.' If some third party behaves so as to cause confusion as to
>> the identity of Apache X, there's a trademark issue. If not, not.
>>
>
> You summed this up to the best of my understanding ... +1. If our legal VP
> agrees (and retracts earlier FUD) it appears we are entirely in agreement.
What "FUD"??
Oh... you mean *your* FUD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@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 environment, and distributes it, I believe that it's a
> fine thing for them to call it simple Apache X, and acknowledge our marks.
>
> If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
> it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them to
> simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes a
> regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
> pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
>
> Further, if someone takes a snapshot (small 's') from source control and
> starts from that, with minimal changes, I think that this would also be
> trademark-acceptable, so long as they accurately describe what they did.
>
> The operative concept here, as Shane has taught it, is 'confusion in the
> marketplace.' If some third party behaves so as to cause confusion as to
> the identity of Apache X, there's a trademark issue. If not, not.
>
You summed this up to the best of my understanding ... +1. If our legal VP
agrees (and retracts earlier FUD) it appears we are entirely in agreement.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
>> ...Their changes do mean that when people come to the solr-user mailing
>> list looking for help, we sometimes have to refer them to the downstream
>> maintainers, because we can't make any sense of where things are....
>
> To me this is clearly a case that requires those maintainers to change the name.
>
> Based on your description their code is clearly a fork of Apache Solr,
> and we shouldn't allow people to keep our names for such external
> forks.
>
> -Bertrand
Are you sure? I would think it's quite common for file locations to
change by a downstream packager, to support the downstream packaging
requirements/conventions. Accumulo has this issue sometimes with
Cloudera and/or Hadoop packaging of Accumulo. We get questions about
errors which don't exist anywhere in Accumulo's source code, or about
classpath problems which apply to the users environment, but not the
vanilla upstream packages we provide from the official source release.
At what point are we growing our community and promoting our
respective projects/brands by encouraging sharing and integration, and
at what point does a downstream packager's action cause us to consider
it a "fork" with the requirement to change the name? If we took a hard
line on this, things would get really crazy... almost no package in a
downstream distro, like Fedora or Ubuntu, would match its upstream
origins (because they are all forked to some extent to make it work in
that environment). And, that would be detrimental. On the other hand,
if we're too soft on this, then substantial forks begin to reflect
badly on the upstream project.
In the case of Solr, it might be the case that it's a substantial
external fork, in need of rebranding. But, if it's just file locations
being moved around to match a distro filesystem layout requirements,
or to do typical distro dependency convergence, backport patches, and
the like, that seems pretty much norm, and it might be a bit too
aggressive to require them to rebrand.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> ...Their changes do mean that when people come to the solr-user mailing
> list looking for help, we sometimes have to refer them to the downstream
> maintainers, because we can't make any sense of where things are....
To me this is clearly a case that requires those maintainers to change the name.
Based on your description their code is clearly a fork of Apache Solr,
and we shouldn't allow people to keep our names for such external
forks.
-Bertrand
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roya Abdi <ra...@gmail.com>.
a<bar>
در تاریخ ۲۱ اوت ۲۰۱۵ ۱۸:۲۴، "Shawn Heisey" <ap...@elyograg.org> نوشت:
> On 8/20/2015 8:03 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
> > it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them
> to
> > simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes
> a
> > regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
> > pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
>
> This is how Debian ended up with "iceweasel" instead of "firefox."
> Mozilla was not OK with allowing its trademarks to be used for the
> version of those products that Debian was including. Mozilla went
> 800-pound gorilla on Debian. Debian complied, but took the rebranding
> route rather than allow Mozilla to force them to compromise on their
> internal guidelines. They got a small measure of revenge with the
> package names they chose. :)
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
>
> Here's a similar situation applicable to Apache ... the Debian and
> Ubuntu projects include a very old version of Apache Solr. The code
> gets patched quite a bit, and a few of the changes could probably be
> called intrusive, but it doesn't fundamentally change what the user
> gets. When the packages are installed (they split the Solr/Lucene code
> into *many* binary packages), the file locations are *dramatically*
> altered compared to a binary or source download from the Solr website.
>
> Given what those projects do to our code and packaging, do we have any
> right to tell them they can't call their package "Solr"? If we do have
> that right, are we losing anything by not exercising it?
>
> Their changes do mean that when people come to the solr-user mailing
> list looking for help, we sometimes have to refer them to the downstream
> maintainers, because we can't make any sense of where things are. Even
> though it sometimes creates support issues, I personally don't think
> there's any big problem with the way that Debian/Ubuntu changes our
> software, but what would a lawyer say?
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 8:03 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
> > it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them
> to
> > simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes
> a
> > regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
> > pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
>
> This is how Debian ended up with "iceweasel" instead of "firefox."
> Mozilla was not OK with allowing its trademarks to be used for the
> version of those products that Debian was including. Mozilla went
> 800-pound gorilla on Debian. Debian complied, but took the rebranding
> route rather than allow Mozilla to force them to compromise on their
> internal guidelines. They got a small measure of revenge with the
> package names they chose. :)
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
>
> Here's a similar situation applicable to Apache ... the Debian and
> Ubuntu projects include a very old version of Apache Solr. The code
> gets patched quite a bit, and a few of the changes could probably be
> called intrusive, but it doesn't fundamentally change what the user
> gets. When the packages are installed (they split the Solr/Lucene code
> into *many* binary packages), the file locations are *dramatically*
> altered compared to a binary or source download from the Solr website.
>
> Given what those projects do to our code and packaging, do we have any
> right to tell them they can't call their package "Solr"? If we do have
> that right, are we losing anything by not exercising it?
>
> Their changes do mean that when people come to the solr-user mailing
> list looking for help, we sometimes have to refer them to the downstream
> maintainers, because we can't make any sense of where things are. Even
> though it sometimes creates support issues, I personally don't think
> there's any big problem with the way that Debian/Ubuntu changes our
> software, but what would a lawyer say?
>
We have the same occurrence at httpd, both issues. Linux distributors
rearrange the product to suit their own conventions, and then 'freeze' at
a particular release but keep pushing a regular assortment of patches
back into their released version, mostly backported from the ASF, plus
whatever they might change that doesn't find its way back upstream.
In your example, I'm looking at packages named liblucene3-contrib-java,
liblucene3-java, liblucene3-java-doc, libsolr-java, solr-common,
solr-jetty,
solr-tomcat all from Debian. Potentially confusing.
It seems that if they want to fork and have a patchwork of what once was
an ASF solr release, they could do this by simply naming their packages
debian-libsolr-java, debian-solr-common, debian-solr-jetty,
debian-solr-tomcat.
There would be no confusion over similarly named apache-solr* packages.
Remember our trademark policy is to avert confusion by the public who
use our software.
However, they already seem to appropriately designate their packages as
not-ASF in the way they version the specific page name. E.g. we find
solr-common_3.6.2+dfsg-6_all.deb which is apparently ASF solr 3.6.2
with their own dfsg 6th patch set applied to that package. If it remains
solr 3.6.2 for all intents and purposes, then I'd suggest their existing
naming convention isn't far from the mark.
One could argue that poor trademark enforcement leads to ill will, just
look at the Mozilla example, look at the MikeRoweSoft example. Yes
it is necessary for us to assert our brands, and police them, but we can
do this in a mutually beneficial way that doesn't diminish our brands or
our reputation.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>.
On 8/20/2015 8:03 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
> it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them to
> simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes a
> regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
> pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
This is how Debian ended up with "iceweasel" instead of "firefox."
Mozilla was not OK with allowing its trademarks to be used for the
version of those products that Debian was including. Mozilla went
800-pound gorilla on Debian. Debian complied, but took the rebranding
route rather than allow Mozilla to force them to compromise on their
internal guidelines. They got a small measure of revenge with the
package names they chose. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
Here's a similar situation applicable to Apache ... the Debian and
Ubuntu projects include a very old version of Apache Solr. The code
gets patched quite a bit, and a few of the changes could probably be
called intrusive, but it doesn't fundamentally change what the user
gets. When the packages are installed (they split the Solr/Lucene code
into *many* binary packages), the file locations are *dramatically*
altered compared to a binary or source download from the Solr website.
Given what those projects do to our code and packaging, do we have any
right to tell them they can't call their package "Solr"? If we do have
that right, are we losing anything by not exercising it?
Their changes do mean that when people come to the solr-user mailing
list looking for help, we sometimes have to refer them to the downstream
maintainers, because we can't make any sense of where things are. Even
though it sometimes creates support issues, I personally don't think
there's any big problem with the way that Debian/Ubuntu changes our
software, but what would a lawyer say?
Thanks,
Shawn
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
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 Apache X, and acknowledge our marks.
If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them to
simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes a
regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
Further, if someone takes a snapshot (small 's') from source control and
starts from that, with minimal changes, I think that this would also be
trademark-acceptable, so long as they accurately describe what they did.
The operative concept here, as Shane has taught it, is 'confusion in the
marketplace.' If some third party behaves so as to cause confusion as to
the identity of Apache X, there's a trademark issue. If not, not.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
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 Apache X, and acknowledge our marks.
If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to
it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them to
simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes a
regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some
pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view.
Further, if someone takes a snapshot (small 's') from source control and
starts from that, with minimal changes, I think that this would also be
trademark-acceptable, so long as they accurately describe what they did.
The operative concept here, as Shane has taught it, is 'confusion in the
marketplace.' If some third party behaves so as to cause confusion as to
the identity of Apache X, there's a trademark issue. If not, not.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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" <ah...@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 be further from the truth.
> >
> > Committers sometimes make mistakes. IIRC, Justin recently caught a
> > mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
> > with AL headers.
> >
> > Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants
might
> > be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF
release.
> > I know from experience.
>
> We don't disagree on this point. Sometimes, they are caught through the
release process, or by peer review. Other times, we must retract the claim
we offered.
>
> Nothing changes the fact that code is either offered under the AL 2.0 or
another license, unless the author/licensor changes their license
retroactively.
Your comment also hones in on the logical fallacy our VP fell into... While
it may be true that the ASF granted its own AL 2.0 license to the release
package, the ASF is unable to change component licenses in incompatible
ways. And the warranty the ASF offers on an inaccurate license claims is -
nil - c.f. AL 2.0
However, if our repositories are under another license, that VP needs to
make public this information, because I never got the memo, and I must
notify friends and the many companies I advise and consult to that they all
need to cease looking at the ASF's repositories, and let their respective
legal departments each sort this all out, if those repositories are
licensed with terms and conditions differing from the AL 2.0.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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" <ah...@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 be further from the truth.
> >
> > Committers sometimes make mistakes. IIRC, Justin recently caught a
> > mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
> > with AL headers.
> >
> > Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants
might
> > be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF
release.
> > I know from experience.
>
> We don't disagree on this point. Sometimes, they are caught through the
release process, or by peer review. Other times, we must retract the claim
we offered.
>
> Nothing changes the fact that code is either offered under the AL 2.0 or
another license, unless the author/licensor changes their license
retroactively.
Your comment also hones in on the logical fallacy our VP fell into... While
it may be true that the ASF granted its own AL 2.0 license to the release
package, the ASF is unable to change component licenses in incompatible
ways. And the warranty the ASF offers on an inaccurate license claims is -
nil - c.f. AL 2.0
However, if our repositories are under another license, that VP needs to
make public this information, because I never got the memo, and I must
notify friends and the many companies I advise and consult to that they all
need to cease looking at the ASF's repositories, and let their respective
legal departments each sort this all out, if those repositories are
licensed with terms and conditions differing from the AL 2.0.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher <ct...@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 by the author, and I think you
missed my followup by a few minutes, so I will quote myself here...
"Your comment also hones in on the logical fallacy our VP fell into...
While it may be true that the ASF granted its own AL 2.0 license to the
release package, the ASF is unable to change component licenses in
incompatible ways. And the warranty the ASF offers on an inaccurate
license claims is - nil - c.f. AL 2.0"
"However, if our repositories are under another license, that VP needs to
make public this information, because I never got the memo, and I must
notify friends and the many companies I advise and consult to that they all
need to cease looking at the ASF's repositories, and let their respective
legal departments each sort this all out, if those repositories are
licensed with terms and conditions differing from the AL 2.0."
Obviously, I think our VP Legal isn't taking his job seriously of advising
the community on the specific legal particularities of the software we
create, which is why I'm going to stand pat until someone offers up a
compelling argument over why anyone is not able to take any of the AL 2.0
code out of ASF repositories, released or not, and re-purpose it for
whatever they desire.
But don't name it by "Apache {foo}" unless {foo} PMC sanctioned the release
of the code. It's entirely in trademark law, and our license and copyright
law gives them everything they need to utilize the code, "released" or not.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher <ct...@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 by the author, and I think you
missed my followup by a few minutes, so I will quote myself here...
"Your comment also hones in on the logical fallacy our VP fell into...
While it may be true that the ASF granted its own AL 2.0 license to the
release package, the ASF is unable to change component licenses in
incompatible ways. And the warranty the ASF offers on an inaccurate
license claims is - nil - c.f. AL 2.0"
"However, if our repositories are under another license, that VP needs to
make public this information, because I never got the memo, and I must
notify friends and the many companies I advise and consult to that they all
need to cease looking at the ASF's repositories, and let their respective
legal departments each sort this all out, if those repositories are
licensed with terms and conditions differing from the AL 2.0."
Obviously, I think our VP Legal isn't taking his job seriously of advising
the community on the specific legal particularities of the software we
create, which is why I'm going to stand pat until someone offers up a
compelling argument over why anyone is not able to take any of the AL 2.0
code out of ASF repositories, released or not, and re-purpose it for
whatever they desire.
But don't name it by "Apache {foo}" unless {foo} PMC sanctioned the release
of the code. It's entirely in trademark law, and our license and copyright
law gives them everything they need to utilize the code, "released" or not.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
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 way to communicate the
license under which the code is offered.
It seems to follow, then, that were saying that there are sometimes errors
in the declaration, where it doesn't reflect what license the code is
actually offered under (if any). Further, we're saying that this is
hopefully less likely in a release, which has been vetted with greater
scrutiny.
Is that right?
If so, then it seems to me that the question really becomes: is it
sufficiently communicated by the very fact of being a snapshot (any state
of the code other than in a release), that errors are possible in the
license? I would think the answer is yes, personally. However, I'm not sure
it really means much, because it's still reasonable for people to assume
the license declaration is correct, until shown otherwise.
It seems to me that the very fact that any license declaration is attached
to the code at all, regardless of its state as a release or snapshot,
shifts the burden of responsibility to actually demonstrate that the
license does not apply. This is the reverse of the case when no obvious
license declaration is made. The burden in that case is to show that the
license does apply. Isn't that why we explicitly put headers on each file,
in addition to the LICENSE file? To explicitly shift this burden to us in
order to encourage free use of our software by others?
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, 21:19 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@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 be further from the truth.
> >
> > Committers sometimes make mistakes. IIRC, Justin recently caught a
> > mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
> > with AL headers.
> >
> > Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants
> might
> > be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF release.
> > I know from experience.
>
> We don't disagree on this point. Sometimes, they are caught through the
> release process, or by peer review. Other times, we must retract the claim
> we offered.
>
> Nothing changes the fact that code is either offered under the AL 2.0 or
> another license, unless the author/licensor changes their license
> retroactively.
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
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 way to communicate the
license under which the code is offered.
It seems to follow, then, that were saying that there are sometimes errors
in the declaration, where it doesn't reflect what license the code is
actually offered under (if any). Further, we're saying that this is
hopefully less likely in a release, which has been vetted with greater
scrutiny.
Is that right?
If so, then it seems to me that the question really becomes: is it
sufficiently communicated by the very fact of being a snapshot (any state
of the code other than in a release), that errors are possible in the
license? I would think the answer is yes, personally. However, I'm not sure
it really means much, because it's still reasonable for people to assume
the license declaration is correct, until shown otherwise.
It seems to me that the very fact that any license declaration is attached
to the code at all, regardless of its state as a release or snapshot,
shifts the burden of responsibility to actually demonstrate that the
license does not apply. This is the reverse of the case when no obvious
license declaration is made. The burden in that case is to show that the
license does apply. Isn't that why we explicitly put headers on each file,
in addition to the LICENSE file? To explicitly shift this burden to us in
order to encourage free use of our software by others?
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, 21:19 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@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 be further from the truth.
> >
> > Committers sometimes make mistakes. IIRC, Justin recently caught a
> > mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
> > with AL headers.
> >
> > Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants
> might
> > be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF release.
> > I know from experience.
>
> We don't disagree on this point. Sometimes, they are caught through the
> release process, or by peer review. Other times, we must retract the claim
> we offered.
>
> Nothing changes the fact that code is either offered under the AL 2.0 or
> another license, unless the author/licensor changes their license
> retroactively.
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@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 be further from the truth.
>
> Committers sometimes make mistakes. IIRC, Justin recently caught a
> mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
> with AL headers.
>
> Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants might
> be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF release.
> I know from experience.
We don't disagree on this point. Sometimes, they are caught through the
release process, or by peer review. Other times, we must retract the claim
we offered.
Nothing changes the fact that code is either offered under the AL 2.0 or
another license, unless the author/licensor changes their license
retroactively.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@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 be further from the truth.
>
> Committers sometimes make mistakes. IIRC, Justin recently caught a
> mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
> with AL headers.
>
> Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants might
> be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF release.
> I know from experience.
We don't disagree on this point. Sometimes, they are caught through the
release process, or by peer review. Other times, we must retract the claim
we offered.
Nothing changes the fact that code is either offered under the AL 2.0 or
another license, unless the author/licensor changes their license
retroactively.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
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. IIRC, Justin recently caught a
mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
with AL headers.
Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants might
be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF release.
I know from experience.
-Alex
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
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. IIRC, Justin recently caught a
mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
with AL headers.
Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants might
be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF release.
I know from experience.
-Alex
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@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 contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even contributing
it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly what
licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
base at {URL}.)
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.
> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
> can declare something as a release.
There we agree :)
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies
<bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
> 'publication' under the terms of the license.
>
> if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
> repositories?
>
I was thinking a similar thing. If a user encounters software, in any
state (released, or whatever), in a repo with a LICENSE attached, it
seems to me that they have every reasonable expectation that they are
in their right to take actions granted by that license (modification,
redistribution).
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ajoy Bhatia <aj...@gmail.com>.
Pardon me from jumping in but... Roman's original question was:
>
>
>
> *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?*
>
So he was asking about someone taking what ASF calls a "snapshot" and
making a release out of it, claiming that it is a release of the same
project. I am also not sure if he meant "SNAPSHOT" in the Maven sense, or
just the state of the project's source repository at a specific moment in
time.
And when Jim said:
>
> *A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/ release.*
>
Jim might have been meaning "SNAPSHOT" and "RELEASE" in the Maven sense.
This is all just my speculation but I thought it might clarify some
misunderstanding.
Thanks...
- Ajoy
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/20/15, 9:26 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >However, a quick search reveals that there are precisely zero
> >occurrences of the word 'release' in version 2.0 of the Apache
> >License.
> >
> >So, I don't know what Jim meant by 'licenses kick in at release', but
> >my view is that putting source in a public Subversion server or git
> >repo is a publication in the legal sense, and that the Foundation
> >grants the Apache license to that content, since we nowhere
> >communicate that we grant some other (lack of) license until the point
> >of release. To me, the plain sense of Jim's phrase is that, somehow,
> >the AL does not apply until there's a release, and I can't make heads
> >or tails of that.
>
> I assumed Jim meant that the public should not feel certain that the AL
> header is correct on items found in the repo, but should feel more certain
> it is correct for files in a release, since, supposedly, a bit more
> scrutiny about the headers happened in creating the release.
>
> IIRC, one of my employer’s lawyers said that the AL applies to any code
> written to be under AL whether it has the header or not. Headers are a
> convenient signpost, but are not required to connect licensing and
> copyright to lines of code.
>
> -Alex
>
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/20/15, 9:26 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>However, a quick search reveals that there are precisely zero
>occurrences of the word 'release' in version 2.0 of the Apache
>License.
>
>So, I don't know what Jim meant by 'licenses kick in at release', but
>my view is that putting source in a public Subversion server or git
>repo is a publication in the legal sense, and that the Foundation
>grants the Apache license to that content, since we nowhere
>communicate that we grant some other (lack of) license until the point
>of release. To me, the plain sense of Jim's phrase is that, somehow,
>the AL does not apply until there's a release, and I can't make heads
>or tails of that.
I assumed Jim meant that the public should not feel certain that the AL
header is correct on items found in the repo, but should feel more certain
it is correct for files in a release, since, supposedly, a bit more
scrutiny about the headers happened in creating the release.
IIRC, one of my employer’s lawyers said that the AL applies to any code
written to be under AL whether it has the header or not. Headers are a
convenient signpost, but are not required to connect licensing and
copyright to lines of code.
-Alex
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey
<ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
>> 'publication' under the terms of the license.
>>
>> if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
>> repositories?
>
> I agree with Jim that "a snapshot is not a release". I also agree with him
> that licenses "kick in" at distribution. As to whether they kick in at
> "distribution/release", I think that's a weird bit of wording, and I would be
> surprised if we are not all in agreement here.
I'm sorry if my original message was unclear. I didn't mean to comment
or question the dictum that 'a snapshot is not a release'. The
Foundation offers specific legal protections to releases that it does
not offer to anything else.
However, a quick search reveals that there are precisely zero
occurrences of the word 'release' in version 2.0 of the Apache
License.
So, I don't know what Jim meant by 'licenses kick in at release', but
my view is that putting source in a public Subversion server or git
repo is a publication in the legal sense, and that the Foundation
grants the Apache license to that content, since we nowhere
communicate that we grant some other (lack of) license until the point
of release. To me, the plain sense of Jim's phrase is that, somehow,
the AL does not apply until there's a release, and I can't make heads
or tails of that.
>
> There were long threads on this topic back in 2007-2009 on
> legal-discuss@apache.
>
> http://markmail.org/message/jangmpbssvvd73az
> http://s.apache.org/6Wm
>
> http://markmail.org/message/xietapwmthvvknex
> http://s.apache.org/H6o
>
> Here's are a couple germane points from Roy:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/vbfjep4r2npkwufa
> http://s.apache.org/aXK
>
> Copyright law has no concept of software development. So, when a
> lawyer looks at
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>
> what the lawyer (or even layperson) sees is a website.
>
> http://markmail.org/message/44ezdre3se3ov5nu
> http://s.apache.org/MEC
>
> > SVN is not a distribution point.
>
> Of course it is a distribution point. Distribution == copy to someone
> else. It isn't a release (an editorial decision by the ASF).
>
> Marvin Humphrey
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
> 'publication' under the terms of the license.
>
> if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
> repositories?
I agree with Jim that "a snapshot is not a release". I also agree with him
that licenses "kick in" at distribution. As to whether they kick in at
"distribution/release", I think that's a weird bit of wording, and I would be
surprised if we are not all in agreement here.
There were long threads on this topic back in 2007-2009 on
legal-discuss@apache.
http://markmail.org/message/jangmpbssvvd73az
http://s.apache.org/6Wm
http://markmail.org/message/xietapwmthvvknex
http://s.apache.org/H6o
Here's are a couple germane points from Roy:
http://markmail.org/message/vbfjep4r2npkwufa
http://s.apache.org/aXK
Copyright law has no concept of software development. So, when a
lawyer looks at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
what the lawyer (or even layperson) sees is a website.
http://markmail.org/message/44ezdre3se3ov5nu
http://s.apache.org/MEC
> SVN is not a distribution point.
Of course it is a distribution point. Distribution == copy to someone
else. It isn't a release (an editorial decision by the ASF).
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
> > 'publication' under the terms of the license.
> >
> > if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
> > repositories?
> >
>
> A file that exists on a public source repo, with an associated
> license is, of course, covered under that license. The issue is
> what is the combined, derivative work under? I can, for example,
> take a handful of ALv2 files, combine them as-is and license
> the WORK as GPLv3 for example.
>
> Furthermore, a release should have such things as a NOTICE file,
> etc, as required. Again, no idea if that is included in a snap-shot
> or not.
>
> A release is such that the release artifact is verified as
> compliant w/ the ALv2, and is an official action of the foundation;
> A snapshot may or not be "verified" but for sure is not an
> official action and the person providing the snapshot does
> so at their own risk.
>
I was working from some significant miss-assumptions which I won't go into
here, to avoid confusing other readers, not unless I understand things
thoroughly.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> I did NOT SAY that... holy moley. I said that licenses kick in
> at a release, but I not not say that they don't kick-in at
> other times; also, a release is guaranteed to be under ALv2
> (it is our "work") and there is no guarantee on said snapshot,
> depending on how it is created.
Yes, I should have given your statement the benefit of the doubt. Whether
your statement had been incomplete, outright wrong, or absolutely on point,
my venting was inexcusable.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> Cut it out.
>
I apologize to you for my antagonistic tone. It was a combination of being
several days deep into a head cold, and fundamentally misunderstanding the
provenance of svn.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
> 'publication' under the terms of the license.
>
> if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
> repositories?
>
A file that exists on a public source repo, with an associated
license is, of course, covered under that license. The issue is
what is the combined, derivative work under? I can, for example,
take a handful of ALv2 files, combine them as-is and license
the WORK as GPLv3 for example.
Furthermore, a release should have such things as a NOTICE file,
etc, as required. Again, no idea if that is included in a snap-shot
or not.
A release is such that the release artifact is verified as
compliant w/ the ALv2, and is an official action of the foundation;
A snapshot may or not be "verified" but for sure is not an
official action and the person providing the snapshot does
so at their own risk.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
> 'publication' under the terms of the license.
>
> if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
> repositories?
I agree with Jim that "a snapshot is not a release". I also agree with him
that licenses "kick in" at distribution. As to whether they kick in at
"distribution/release", I think that's a weird bit of wording, and I would be
surprised if we are not all in agreement here.
There were long threads on this topic back in 2007-2009 on
legal-discuss@apache.
http://markmail.org/message/jangmpbssvvd73az
http://s.apache.org/6Wm
http://markmail.org/message/xietapwmthvvknex
http://s.apache.org/H6o
Here's are a couple germane points from Roy:
http://markmail.org/message/vbfjep4r2npkwufa
http://s.apache.org/aXK
Copyright law has no concept of software development. So, when a
lawyer looks at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
what the lawyer (or even layperson) sees is a website.
http://markmail.org/message/44ezdre3se3ov5nu
http://s.apache.org/MEC
> SVN is not a distribution point.
Of course it is a distribution point. Distribution == copy to someone
else. It isn't a release (an editorial decision by the ASF).
Marvin Humphrey
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
> 'publication' under the terms of the license.
>
> if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
> repositories?
>
A file that exists on a public source repo, with an associated
license is, of course, covered under that license. The issue is
what is the combined, derivative work under? I can, for example,
take a handful of ALv2 files, combine them as-is and license
the WORK as GPLv3 for example.
Furthermore, a release should have such things as a NOTICE file,
etc, as required. Again, no idea if that is included in a snap-shot
or not.
A release is such that the release artifact is verified as
compliant w/ the ALv2, and is an official action of the foundation;
A snapshot may or not be "verified" but for sure is not an
official action and the person providing the snapshot does
so at their own risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
'publication' under the terms of the license.
if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
repositories?
>
> 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 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?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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 <ji...@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 repositories, svn or git.
> >
>
> I did NOT SAY that... holy moley. I said that licenses kick in
> at a release, but I not not say that they don't kick-in at
> other times; also, a release is guaranteed to be under ALv2
> (it is our "work") and there is no guarantee on said snapshot,
> depending on how it is created.
>
Ok, so a license applies to the release. A license applies to the sources
in SVN, to the sources in snapshots, ad nasuem...
A license also applies to the snapshot. I'd suggest that all
snapshots/nightly builds etc, any of them distributing ASF code, have to
carry the COPYRIGHT and NOTICE that any other distribution is required to
have. They must be present in the source control tree. Leaving out the
LICENSE and NOTICE from a non-release is no more correct than leaving them
out of the release itself. But the "kick in" meme doesn't serve us well.
Back to the top-post, enforcing that any releases from any packager
correspond to what we've published as an ASF release, that authority comes
from asserting our marks, and we spell out how we enforce this in AL 2.0
section 6. But the question of what is "close enough" to the ASF release
and what is arguably confusing to users is really up to the individual
PMC's because only they are familiar with their users expectations and what
constitutes a fork, vs. a practical distribution of the source code they
released. We offer reasonable leeway to distributors at the apr and httpd
projects and haven't run into too much confusion...
...except in one case, we did have an external entity shipping
pre-release-vote binaries without clarifying that these were not releases.
They were asked to stop, and voila, that entity is now a much more
respected member of the extended community, just because we asked and they
obliged.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> 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 <ji...@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 repositories, svn or git.
>
I did NOT SAY that... holy moley. I said that licenses kick in
at a release, but I not not say that they don't kick-in at
other times; also, a release is guaranteed to be under ALv2
(it is our "work") and there is no guarantee on said snapshot,
depending on how it is created.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> 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 <ji...@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 repositories, svn or git.
>
I did NOT SAY that... holy moley. I said that licenses kick in
at a release, but I not not say that they don't kick-in at
other times; also, a release is guaranteed to be under ALv2
(it is our "work") and there is no guarantee on said snapshot,
depending on how it is created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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 repositories, svn or git.
Quoting http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 ...
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to
reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
Object form.
No, you may not modify the sources or derive those that reside within
version control of the ASF, until and upon the time when the project has
blessed that project as a release. Patches to others' contributions to
source code control are not within the scope of this imaginary non-license
application.
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in
this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell,
import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to
those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily
infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their
Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a
Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or
contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You
under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such
litigation is filed.
No, you may absolutely not test the code that has been committed to source
control without a patent license, which you do not have, until that time
when the ASF blesses the work and calls it a release.
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or
Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and
in Source or Object form
None of that, it's all straight out, none of it applies to your work at the
ASF until the release is blessed. That includes passing off a patched fork
of a security fix to a reporter who claimed there was a defect in the
earlier release.
5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any
Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to
the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License
Except when it isn't in Ross's and our VP Legal's own minds...
6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except
as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of
the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
Which wasn't a right in the first place, so no change here under any
interpretation...
7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to
in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its
Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any
warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for
determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and
assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this
License.
Except that perhaps the ASF is liable, under our VP Legal's interpretation,
for works which do reside in source control and were not, in fact, released
to the general public? [Ad nauseam 8. and 9.]
Let's just not go this direction, because it is plainly false. Jim, it
would truly be helpful if you spoke up for or in contradiction to your
earlier statements, here...
Cheers,
Bill
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> On 20 Aug 2015, at 2:52 pm, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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 right now?
(Because they would have been voted on as a ‘’release’’ for the projects to put them there
in the first place)
(Or are all those different to Snapshots somehow?)
Gav…
> 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 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?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Gav...
( ( (
( )\ ) )\ ) )\ ) ( ) )
)\ (()/((()/( (()/( )\ ) ( ) ( /( ( ( ( /( ( ( (
((((_)( /(_))/(_)) /(_)) ( (()/( )( ( /( ( )\()))( ))\ ( )\()) ))\ )( ))\
)\ _ )\ (_)) (_))_| (_)) )\ ) /(_))(()\ )(_)) )\ (_))/(()\ /((_) )\ (_))/ /((_)(()\ /((_)
(_)_\(_)/ __|| |_ |_ _| _(_/((_) _| ((_)((_)_ ((_)| |_ ((_)(_))( ((_)| |_ (_))( ((_)(_))
/ _ \ \__ \| __| | | | ' \))| _|| '_|/ _` |(_-<| _|| '_|| || |/ _| | _|| || || '_|/ -_)
/_/ \_\ |___/|_| |___||_||_| |_| |_| \__,_|/__/ \__||_| \_,_|\__| \__| \_,_||_| \___|
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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 repositories, svn or git.
Quoting http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 ...
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to
reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
Object form.
No, you may not modify the sources or derive those that reside within
version control of the ASF, until and upon the time when the project has
blessed that project as a release. Patches to others' contributions to
source code control are not within the scope of this imaginary non-license
application.
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in
this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell,
import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to
those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily
infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their
Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a
Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or
contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You
under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such
litigation is filed.
No, you may absolutely not test the code that has been committed to source
control without a patent license, which you do not have, until that time
when the ASF blesses the work and calls it a release.
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or
Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and
in Source or Object form
None of that, it's all straight out, none of it applies to your work at the
ASF until the release is blessed. That includes passing off a patched fork
of a security fix to a reporter who claimed there was a defect in the
earlier release.
5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any
Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to
the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License
Except when it isn't in Ross's and our VP Legal's own minds...
6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except
as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of
the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
Which wasn't a right in the first place, so no change here under any
interpretation...
7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to
in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its
Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any
warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for
determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and
assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this
License.
Except that perhaps the ASF is liable, under our VP Legal's interpretation,
for works which do reside in source control and were not, in fact, released
to the general public? [Ad nauseam 8. and 9.]
Let's just not go this direction, because it is plainly false. Jim, it
would truly be helpful if you spoke up for or in contradiction to your
earlier statements, here...
Cheers,
Bill
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@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 contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even contributing
it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly what
licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
base at {URL}.)
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.
> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
> can declare something as a release.
There we agree :)
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@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
'publication' under the terms of the license.
if not, just what is the legal status of source code snipped from our
repositories?
>
> 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 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?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
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 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
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 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
It's all trademark. They can release whatever they want so long as
they clearly document that it does not come from us. We ask them to
achieve this clarity via certain trademark guidelines, but the
principle behind the thing is that they can't mislead the public into
thinking it comes from us.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:50 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Aug 7, 2015 3:20 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase <gc...@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: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Aug 7, 2015 3:20 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase <gc...@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: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase <gc...@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 <ni...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@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: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase <gc...@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 <ni...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Gregory Chase <gc...@pivotal.io>.
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 <ni...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@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: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Gregory Chase <gc...@pivotal.io>.
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 <ni...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@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: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@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
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Stefan Reich <st...@googlemail.com>.
Why not? So *everything * in your world is forbidden?
Join the world of freedom.
Am 07.08.2015 13:55 schrieb "Niclas Hedhman" <ni...@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: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> On 8/16/15 4:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>>>
>>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
>>> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
>>> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
>>> providing software using our trademarks.
>>>
>>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
>>> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
>>> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
>>> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>>
>>> Make sense?
>>
>> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
>> (just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
>> precedent.
>>
>> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>> http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
>> http://pkgs.org/search/maven
>> http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
>> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
>> policies apply in both cases.
>>
>> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
>> set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>
> OK, that will take some time. It would help if we can setup a call or
> get someone to writeup a description of what those pages mean from the
> larger perspective:
Understood. And perhaps this could be considered
important enough so that we start a dedicated thread.
Let me know if you'd also suggest moving to a more appropriate
mailing list.
> Trademarks are about preventing consumer confusion as to the source of
> goods. So we need to consider this from the point of view of an
> experienced software developer in the general sense - someone who is
> *not* an Apache committer and not experienced with our products in
> specific, but someone who is an experienced software developer, systems
> architect, or devops type who's trying to evaluate a bunch of software
> for their company.
Fully agree with the goals.
> The issue is I don't use pkgs.org (I use homebrew, but only for more
> end-user applications recently), so I'm trying to translate to the
> experience of an actual developer consumer who'd be trying to find and
> use these products.
pkgs.org is not actually a packaging system, but rather an index
of almost all packages available on various Linux distributions.
Think of it as Yellow Pages for ALL possible Linux packages.
It is a good place to quickly get a sense of how ASF software
gets represented in very different Linux distros.
> The problem is that trademark analyses are much easier to do for
> consumer products, and for physical goods. Software is inherently
> different in that "marketing brochures" or store signs or packaging is
> very different, and widely varied on a whole bunch of web pages. Plus,
> most of our products are highly technical: very few computer end users
> are downloading Hadoop or Maven - it's software developers who are
> looking for these. So understanding the common software developer
> perspective on how they see *where* these named downloadable software
> products are being displayed matters.
Makes total sense to me! [*]
Thanks,
Roman.
[*] it is also, coincidentally, what I get so worked up when 'general public'
in our release policy gets [mis]interpreted as mostly related to 'end users'.
But that's a pet peeve for a different thread ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> On 8/16/15 4:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>>>
>>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
>>> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
>>> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
>>> providing software using our trademarks.
>>>
>>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
>>> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
>>> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
>>> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>>
>>> Make sense?
>>
>> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
>> (just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
>> precedent.
>>
>> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>> http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
>> http://pkgs.org/search/maven
>> http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
>> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
>> policies apply in both cases.
>>
>> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
>> set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>
> OK, that will take some time. It would help if we can setup a call or
> get someone to writeup a description of what those pages mean from the
> larger perspective:
Understood. And perhaps this could be considered
important enough so that we start a dedicated thread.
Let me know if you'd also suggest moving to a more appropriate
mailing list.
> Trademarks are about preventing consumer confusion as to the source of
> goods. So we need to consider this from the point of view of an
> experienced software developer in the general sense - someone who is
> *not* an Apache committer and not experienced with our products in
> specific, but someone who is an experienced software developer, systems
> architect, or devops type who's trying to evaluate a bunch of software
> for their company.
Fully agree with the goals.
> The issue is I don't use pkgs.org (I use homebrew, but only for more
> end-user applications recently), so I'm trying to translate to the
> experience of an actual developer consumer who'd be trying to find and
> use these products.
pkgs.org is not actually a packaging system, but rather an index
of almost all packages available on various Linux distributions.
Think of it as Yellow Pages for ALL possible Linux packages.
It is a good place to quickly get a sense of how ASF software
gets represented in very different Linux distros.
> The problem is that trademark analyses are much easier to do for
> consumer products, and for physical goods. Software is inherently
> different in that "marketing brochures" or store signs or packaging is
> very different, and widely varied on a whole bunch of web pages. Plus,
> most of our products are highly technical: very few computer end users
> are downloading Hadoop or Maven - it's software developers who are
> looking for these. So understanding the common software developer
> perspective on how they see *where* these named downloadable software
> products are being displayed matters.
Makes total sense to me! [*]
Thanks,
Roman.
[*] it is also, coincidentally, what I get so worked up when 'general public'
in our release policy gets [mis]interpreted as mostly related to 'end users'.
But that's a pet peeve for a different thread ;-)
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 8/16/15 4:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>>
>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
>> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
>> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
>> providing software using our trademarks.
>>
>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
>> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
>> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
>> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>
>> Make sense?
>
> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
> (just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
> precedent.
>
> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
> http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
> http://pkgs.org/search/maven
> http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
> policies apply in both cases.
>
> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
> set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
OK, that will take some time. It would help if we can setup a call or
get someone to writeup a description of what those pages mean from the
larger perspective:
Trademarks are about preventing consumer confusion as to the source of
goods. So we need to consider this from the point of view of an
experienced software developer in the general sense - someone who is
*not* an Apache committer and not experienced with our products in
specific, but someone who is an experienced software developer, systems
architect, or devops type who's trying to evaluate a bunch of software
for their company.
The issue is I don't use pkgs.org (I use homebrew, but only for more
end-user applications recently), so I'm trying to translate to the
experience of an actual developer consumer who'd be trying to find and
use these products.
The problem is that trademark analyses are much easier to do for
consumer products, and for physical goods. Software is inherently
different in that "marketing brochures" or store signs or packaging is
very different, and widely varied on a whole bunch of web pages. Plus,
most of our products are highly technical: very few computer end users
are downloading Hadoop or Maven - it's software developers who are
looking for these. So understanding the common software developer
perspective on how they see *where* these named downloadable software
products are being displayed matters.
- Shane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
You can't generalize from a single sample.
I see the pattern of email addresses with varying amounts of numbers in
them, some of them also very long, every year with GSoC students.
Uli
On Thu, August 20, 2015 00:32, sebb wrote:
> The recent spammers have used quite unusual e-mail addresses, with
> very long numbers in them.
>
> On 19 August 2015 at 23:18, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>> So how would you distinguish a spammer's subscription request from that
>> of a valid user? I certainly
>> can't from looking at the email address alone.
>>
>> Uli
>>
>> On 17.08.15 14:46, sebb wrote:
>>> On 17 August 2015 at 10:52, Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So I checked the config for dev@community and it is set up as a normal
>>>> dev@ list operates.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore anyone can subscribe to the list and post.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing we can do here is change it to subscription moderation
>>>> - that is an on|off switch so therefore
>>>> ALL subscription requests will have to be approved by a moderator.
>>>>
>>>> If you are ok with that I can make the change .
>>>
>>> +1 from me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I checked the logs and it looks like a mod has removed the
>>>> subscription for the user in this thread.
>>>
>>> That was me, sorry forgot to let the list know.
>>>
>>>> Let me know,
>>>>
>>>> Gav…
>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Aug 2015, at 9:48 am, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if it's possible (you reply made me think I may be mixing up
>>>>> Google Groups features with our lists)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>> From: jan i <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: 8/17/2015 1:44 AM
>>>>> To: dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>
>>>>> Cc: Roman Shaposhnik <ma...@shaposhnik.org>; Apache
>>>>> Infrastructure <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies
>>>>> at ASF?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 August 2015 at 10:24, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
>>>>> <ma...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Moderating first posts would be better.
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to that solution (did not know that was possible), that way the
>>>>> moderators to not get overloaded with work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternative would be to allow apache ID, and moderate others.
>>>>>
>>>>> rgds
>>>>> jan i.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
>>>>>> To: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
>>>>>> <ma...@shaposhnik.org>>
>>>>>> Cc: ComDev <dev@community.apache.org
>>>>>> <ma...@community.apache.org>>; Apache Infrastructure <
>>>>>> infrastructure@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies
>>>>>> at ASF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o
>>>>>> <ma...@community.a.o> for
>>>>>> details)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
>>>>>> <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it,
>>>>>>> no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: 田義忠 <name0905189282@icloud.com
>>>>>>> <ma...@icloud.com>>
>>>>>>> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>> ASF?
>>>>>>> To: "dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>"
>>>>>>> <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
>>>>>>>> <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru
>>>>>>>>> <asf@shanecurcuru.org <ma...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww
>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww>
>>>>>>>>> .apache.org
>>>>>>>>> <http://apache.org/>%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
>>>>>>>>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com
>>>>>>>>> <http://40microsoft.com/>%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
>>>>>>>>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
>>>>>>>>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
>>>>>>>>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
>>>>>>>>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Make sense?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d
>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d
>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs
>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs>.
>>>>>>>> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com
>>>>>>>> <http://40microsoft.com/>
>>>>>>>> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
>>>>>>>> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
>>>>>>>> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> both cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gav...
>>>>
>>>> ( ( (
>>>> ( )\ ) )\ ) )\ ) ( )
>>>> )
>>>> )\ (()/((()/( (()/( )\ ) ( ) ( /( ( (
>>>> ( /( ( ( (
>>>> ((((_)( /(_))/(_)) /(_)) ( (()/( )( ( /( ( )\()))( ))\
>>>> ( )\()) ))\ )( ))\
>>>> )\ _ )\ (_)) (_))_| (_)) )\ ) /(_))(()\ )(_)) )\ (_))/(()\ /((_)
>>>> )\ (_))/ /((_)(()\ /((_)
>>>> (_)_\(_)/ __|| |_ |_ _| _(_/((_) _| ((_)((_)_ ((_)| |_ ((_)(_))(
>>>> ((_)| |_ (_))( ((_)(_))
>>>> / _ \ \__ \| __| | | | ' \))| _|| '_|/ _` |(_-<| _|| '_|| || |/
>>>> _| | _|| || || '_|/ -_)
>>>> /_/ \_\ |___/|_| |___||_||_| |_| |_| \__,_|/__/ \__||_|
>>>> \_,_|\__| \__| \_,_||_| \___|
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
The recent spammers have used quite unusual e-mail addresses, with
very long numbers in them.
On 19 August 2015 at 23:18, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> So how would you distinguish a spammer's subscription request from that of a valid user? I certainly
> can't from looking at the email address alone.
>
> Uli
>
> On 17.08.15 14:46, sebb wrote:
>> On 17 August 2015 at 10:52, Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>>> So I checked the config for dev@community and it is set up as a normal dev@ list operates.
>>>
>>> Therefore anyone can subscribe to the list and post.
>>>
>>> The only thing we can do here is change it to subscription moderation - that is an on|off switch so therefore
>>> ALL subscription requests will have to be approved by a moderator.
>>>
>>> If you are ok with that I can make the change .
>>
>> +1 from me.
>>
>>
>>> I checked the logs and it looks like a mod has removed the subscription for the user in this thread.
>>
>> That was me, sorry forgot to let the list know.
>>
>>> Let me know,
>>>
>>> Gav…
>>>
>>>> On 17 Aug 2015, at 9:48 am, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if it's possible (you reply made me think I may be mixing up Google Groups features with our lists)
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>> From: jan i <ma...@apache.org>
>>>> Sent: 8/17/2015 1:44 AM
>>>> To: dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>
>>>> Cc: Roman Shaposhnik <ma...@shaposhnik.org>; Apache Infrastructure <ma...@apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>>>>
>>>> On 17 August 2015 at 10:24, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com <ma...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Moderating first posts would be better.
>>>>>
>>>> +1 to that solution (did not know that was possible), that way the
>>>> moderators to not get overloaded with work.
>>>>
>>>> Alternative would be to allow apache ID, and moderate others.
>>>>
>>>> rgds
>>>> jan i.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
>>>>> To: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>>
>>>>> Cc: ComDev <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>; Apache Infrastructure <
>>>>> infrastructure@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o <ma...@community.a.o> for
>>>>> details)
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: 田義忠 <name0905189282@icloud.com <ma...@icloud.com>>
>>>>>> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at
>>>>> ASF?
>>>>>> To: "dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>" <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org <ma...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww>
>>>>>>>> .apache.org <http://apache.org/>%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
>>>>>>>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
>>>>>>>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
>>>>>>>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to
>>>>>>>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
>>>>>>>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
>>>>>>>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any
>>>>>>>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our
>>>>>>>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are
>>>>>>>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Make sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just to
>>>>>>> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs>.
>>>>>>> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>
>>>>>>> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
>>>>>>> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
>>>>>>> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply in
>>>>>>> both cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases of
>>>>>>> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Gav...
>>>
>>> ( ( (
>>> ( )\ ) )\ ) )\ ) ( ) )
>>> )\ (()/((()/( (()/( )\ ) ( ) ( /( ( ( ( /( ( ( (
>>> ((((_)( /(_))/(_)) /(_)) ( (()/( )( ( /( ( )\()))( ))\ ( )\()) ))\ )( ))\
>>> )\ _ )\ (_)) (_))_| (_)) )\ ) /(_))(()\ )(_)) )\ (_))/(()\ /((_) )\ (_))/ /((_)(()\ /((_)
>>> (_)_\(_)/ __|| |_ |_ _| _(_/((_) _| ((_)((_)_ ((_)| |_ ((_)(_))( ((_)| |_ (_))( ((_)(_))
>>> / _ \ \__ \| __| | | | ' \))| _|| '_|/ _` |(_-<| _|| '_|| || |/ _| | _|| || || '_|/ -_)
>>> /_/ \_\ |___/|_| |___||_||_| |_| |_| \__,_|/__/ \__||_| \_,_|\__| \__| \_,_||_| \___|
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
So how would you distinguish a spammer's subscription request from that of a valid user? I certainly
can't from looking at the email address alone.
Uli
On 17.08.15 14:46, sebb wrote:
> On 17 August 2015 at 10:52, Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>> So I checked the config for dev@community and it is set up as a normal dev@ list operates.
>>
>> Therefore anyone can subscribe to the list and post.
>>
>> The only thing we can do here is change it to subscription moderation - that is an on|off switch so therefore
>> ALL subscription requests will have to be approved by a moderator.
>>
>> If you are ok with that I can make the change .
>
> +1 from me.
>
>
>> I checked the logs and it looks like a mod has removed the subscription for the user in this thread.
>
> That was me, sorry forgot to let the list know.
>
>> Let me know,
>>
>> Gav…
>>
>>> On 17 Aug 2015, at 9:48 am, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not sure if it's possible (you reply made me think I may be mixing up Google Groups features with our lists)
>>>
>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>> From: jan i <ma...@apache.org>
>>> Sent: 8/17/2015 1:44 AM
>>> To: dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>
>>> Cc: Roman Shaposhnik <ma...@shaposhnik.org>; Apache Infrastructure <ma...@apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>>>
>>> On 17 August 2015 at 10:24, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com <ma...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moderating first posts would be better.
>>>>
>>> +1 to that solution (did not know that was possible), that way the
>>> moderators to not get overloaded with work.
>>>
>>> Alternative would be to allow apache ID, and moderate others.
>>>
>>> rgds
>>> jan i.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
>>>> To: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>>
>>>> Cc: ComDev <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>; Apache Infrastructure <
>>>> infrastructure@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>>>>
>>>> This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o <ma...@community.a.o> for
>>>> details)
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
>>>>
>>>> On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> wrote:
>>>>> This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: 田義忠 <name0905189282@icloud.com <ma...@icloud.com>>
>>>>> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at
>>>> ASF?
>>>>> To: "dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>" <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org <ma...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww>
>>>>>>> .apache.org <http://apache.org/>%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
>>>>>>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
>>>>>>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
>>>>>>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to
>>>>>>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
>>>>>>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
>>>>>>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any
>>>>>>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our
>>>>>>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are
>>>>>>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Make sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just to
>>>>>> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>>>>>>
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs>.
>>>>>> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>
>>>>>> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
>>>>>> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
>>>>>> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply in
>>>>>> both cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases of
>>>>>> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>
>>
>> Gav...
>>
>> ( ( (
>> ( )\ ) )\ ) )\ ) ( ) )
>> )\ (()/((()/( (()/( )\ ) ( ) ( /( ( ( ( /( ( ( (
>> ((((_)( /(_))/(_)) /(_)) ( (()/( )( ( /( ( )\()))( ))\ ( )\()) ))\ )( ))\
>> )\ _ )\ (_)) (_))_| (_)) )\ ) /(_))(()\ )(_)) )\ (_))/(()\ /((_) )\ (_))/ /((_)(()\ /((_)
>> (_)_\(_)/ __|| |_ |_ _| _(_/((_) _| ((_)((_)_ ((_)| |_ ((_)(_))( ((_)| |_ (_))( ((_)(_))
>> / _ \ \__ \| __| | | | ' \))| _|| '_|/ _` |(_-<| _|| '_|| || |/ _| | _|| || || '_|/ -_)
>> /_/ \_\ |___/|_| |___||_||_| |_| |_| \__,_|/__/ \__||_| \_,_|\__| \__| \_,_||_| \___|
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17 August 2015 at 10:52, Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
> So I checked the config for dev@community and it is set up as a normal dev@ list operates.
>
> Therefore anyone can subscribe to the list and post.
>
> The only thing we can do here is change it to subscription moderation - that is an on|off switch so therefore
> ALL subscription requests will have to be approved by a moderator.
>
> If you are ok with that I can make the change .
+1 from me.
> I checked the logs and it looks like a mod has removed the subscription for the user in this thread.
That was me, sorry forgot to let the list know.
> Let me know,
>
> Gav…
>
>> On 17 Aug 2015, at 9:48 am, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not sure if it's possible (you reply made me think I may be mixing up Google Groups features with our lists)
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> From: jan i <ma...@apache.org>
>> Sent: 8/17/2015 1:44 AM
>> To: dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>
>> Cc: Roman Shaposhnik <ma...@shaposhnik.org>; Apache Infrastructure <ma...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>>
>> On 17 August 2015 at 10:24, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com <ma...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > Moderating first posts would be better.
>> >
>> +1 to that solution (did not know that was possible), that way the
>> moderators to not get overloaded with work.
>>
>> Alternative would be to allow apache ID, and moderate others.
>>
>> rgds
>> jan i.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
>> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
>> > To: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>>
>> > Cc: ComDev <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>; Apache Infrastructure <
>> > infrastructure@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>> > Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>> >
>> > This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o <ma...@community.a.o> for
>> > details)
>> >
>> > Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
>> >
>> > On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> wrote:
>> > > This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > > From: 田義忠 <name0905189282@icloud.com <ma...@icloud.com>>
>> > > Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at
>> > ASF?
>> > > To: "dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>" <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>> > >
>> > >> Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>> > >>
>> > >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org <ma...@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 actual trademark policy:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww>
>> > >>> .apache.org <http://apache.org/>%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
>> > >>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
>> > >>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
>> > >>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to
>> > >>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
>> > >>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
>> > >>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any
>> > >>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our
>> > >>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are
>> > >>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Make sense?
>> > >>
>> > >> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just to
>> > >> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
>> > >>
>> > >> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>> > >>
>> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d>
>> > >>
>> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d>
>> > >>
>> > >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs>.
>> > >> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>
>> > >> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
>> > >> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
>> > >> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply in
>> > >> both cases.
>> > >>
>> > >> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases of
>> > >> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> Roman.
>> >
>
> Gav...
>
> ( ( (
> ( )\ ) )\ ) )\ ) ( ) )
> )\ (()/((()/( (()/( )\ ) ( ) ( /( ( ( ( /( ( ( (
> ((((_)( /(_))/(_)) /(_)) ( (()/( )( ( /( ( )\()))( ))\ ( )\()) ))\ )( ))\
> )\ _ )\ (_)) (_))_| (_)) )\ ) /(_))(()\ )(_)) )\ (_))/(()\ /((_) )\ (_))/ /((_)(()\ /((_)
> (_)_\(_)/ __|| |_ |_ _| _(_/((_) _| ((_)((_)_ ((_)| |_ ((_)(_))( ((_)| |_ (_))( ((_)(_))
> / _ \ \__ \| __| | | | ' \))| _|| '_|/ _` |(_-<| _|| '_|| || |/ _| | _|| || || '_|/ -_)
> /_/ \_\ |___/|_| |___||_||_| |_| |_| \__,_|/__/ \__||_| \_,_|\__| \__| \_,_||_| \___|
>
>
>
>
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
So I checked the config for dev@community and it is set up as a normal dev@ list operates.
Therefore anyone can subscribe to the list and post.
The only thing we can do here is change it to subscription moderation - that is an on|off switch so therefore
ALL subscription requests will have to be approved by a moderator.
If you are ok with that I can make the change .
I checked the logs and it looks like a mod has removed the subscription for the user in this thread.
Let me know,
Gav…
> On 17 Aug 2015, at 9:48 am, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Not sure if it's possible (you reply made me think I may be mixing up Google Groups features with our lists)
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> From: jan i <ma...@apache.org>
> Sent: 8/17/2015 1:44 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>
> Cc: Roman Shaposhnik <ma...@shaposhnik.org>; Apache Infrastructure <ma...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>
> On 17 August 2015 at 10:24, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com <ma...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
> > Moderating first posts would be better.
> >
> +1 to that solution (did not know that was possible), that way the
> moderators to not get overloaded with work.
>
> Alternative would be to allow apache ID, and moderate others.
>
> rgds
> jan i.
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>]
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
> > To: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>>
> > Cc: ComDev <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>; Apache Infrastructure <
> > infrastructure@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> > Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
> >
> > This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o <ma...@community.a.o> for
> > details)
> >
> > Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
> >
> > On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> wrote:
> > > This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: 田義忠 <name0905189282@icloud.com <ma...@icloud.com>>
> > > Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
> > > Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at
> > ASF?
> > > To: "dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>" <dev@community.apache.org <ma...@community.apache.org>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 從我的 iPhone 傳送
> > >
> > >> Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org <ma...@shaposhnik.org>> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
> > >>
> > >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org <ma...@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 actual trademark policy:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww>
> > >>> .apache.org <http://apache.org/>%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
> > >>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
> > >>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
> > >>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
> > >>>
> > >>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to
> > >>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
> > >>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
> > >>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
> > >>>
> > >>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any
> > >>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our
> > >>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are
> > >>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
> > >>>
> > >>> Make sense?
> > >>
> > >> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just to
> > >> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
> > >>
> > >> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
> > >>
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d>
> > >>
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d>
> > >>
> > >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs>.
> > >> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com <http://40microsoft.com/>
> > >> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
> > >> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
> > >> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply in
> > >> both cases.
> > >>
> > >> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases of
> > >> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Roman.
> >
Gav...
( ( (
( )\ ) )\ ) )\ ) ( ) )
)\ (()/((()/( (()/( )\ ) ( ) ( /( ( ( ( /( ( ( (
((((_)( /(_))/(_)) /(_)) ( (()/( )( ( /( ( )\()))( ))\ ( )\()) ))\ )( ))\
)\ _ )\ (_)) (_))_| (_)) )\ ) /(_))(()\ )(_)) )\ (_))/(()\ /((_) )\ (_))/ /((_)(()\ /((_)
(_)_\(_)/ __|| |_ |_ _| _(_/((_) _| ((_)((_)_ ((_)| |_ ((_)(_))( ((_)| |_ (_))( ((_)(_))
/ _ \ \__ \| __| | | | ' \))| _|| '_|/ _` |(_-<| _|| '_|| || |/ _| | _|| || || '_|/ -_)
/_/ \_\ |___/|_| |___||_||_| |_| |_| \__,_|/__/ \__||_| \_,_|\__| \__| \_,_||_| \___|
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Not sure if it's possible (you reply made me think I may be mixing up Google Groups features with our lists)
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: jan i<ma...@apache.org>
Sent: 8/17/2015 1:44 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org<ma...@community.apache.org>
Cc: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>; Apache Infrastructure<ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
On 17 August 2015 at 10:24, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Moderating first posts would be better.
>
+1 to that solution (did not know that was possible), that way the
moderators to not get overloaded with work.
Alternative would be to allow apache ID, and moderate others.
rgds
jan i.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
> To: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> Cc: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>; Apache Infrastructure <
> infrastructure@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>
> This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o for
> details)
>
> Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
>
> On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> > This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: 田義忠 <na...@icloud.com>
> > Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at
> ASF?
> > To: "dev@community.apache.org" <de...@community.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 從我的 iPhone 傳送
> >
> >> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww
> >>> .apache.org%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
> >>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
> >>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
> >>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
> >>>
> >>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to
> >>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
> >>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
> >>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
> >>>
> >>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any
> >>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our
> >>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are
> >>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
> >>>
> >>> Make sense?
> >>
> >> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just to
> >> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
> >>
> >> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
> >>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d
> >>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d
> >>
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.
> >> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com
> >> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
> >> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
> >> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply in
> >> both cases.
> >>
> >> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases of
> >> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 17 August 2015 at 10:24, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Moderating first posts would be better.
>
+1 to that solution (did not know that was possible), that way the
moderators to not get overloaded with work.
Alternative would be to allow apache ID, and moderate others.
rgds
jan i.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
> To: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> Cc: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>; Apache Infrastructure <
> infrastructure@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>
> This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o for
> details)
>
> Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
>
> On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> > This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: 田義忠 <na...@icloud.com>
> > Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at
> ASF?
> > To: "dev@community.apache.org" <de...@community.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 從我的 iPhone 傳送
> >
> >> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww
> >>> .apache.org%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
> >>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
> >>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
> >>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
> >>>
> >>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to
> >>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
> >>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
> >>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
> >>>
> >>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any
> >>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our
> >>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are
> >>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
> >>>
> >>> Make sense?
> >>
> >> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just to
> >> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
> >>
> >> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
> >>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d
> >>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d
> >>
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.
> >> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com
> >> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
> >> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
> >> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply in
> >> both cases.
> >>
> >> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases of
> >> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by 田義忠 <na...@icloud.com>.
從我的 iPhone 傳送
> Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> 於 2015年8月17日 16:24 寫道：
>
> Moderating first posts would be better.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
> To: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> Cc: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>; Apache Infrastructure <in...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>
> This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o for details)
>
> Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
>
>> On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: 田義忠 <na...@icloud.com>
>> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
>> To: "dev@community.apache.org" <de...@community.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>>
>>>> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww
>>>> .apache.org%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
>>>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
>>>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
>>>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
>>>>
>>>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to
>>>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
>>>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
>>>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
>>>>
>>>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any
>>>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our
>>>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are
>>>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>>>
>>>> Make sense?
>>>
>>> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just to
>>> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
>>>
>>> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d
>>>
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.
>>> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com
>>> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
>>> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
>>> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply in
>>> both cases.
>>>
>>> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases of
>>> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Moderating first posts would be better.
-----Original Message-----
From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:22 AM
To: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Cc: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>; Apache Infrastructure <in...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o for details)
Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: 田義忠 <na...@icloud.com>
> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
> To: "dev@community.apache.org" <de...@community.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>
>> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww
>>> .apache.org%2ffoundation%2fmarks%2ffaq%2f%23products&data=01%7c01%7c
>>> ross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72
>>> f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DdcuJh%2bbhphaiy7yoW%2f2caG
>>> y15TIxfrsXg1V%2fHh9Jsg%3d
>>>
>>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to
>>> ASF projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our
>>> trademark policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from
>>> publicly providing software using our trademarks.
>>>
>>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any
>>> other corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our
>>> formal trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are
>>> allowed to use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>>
>>> Make sense?
>>
>> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors (just to
>> take the most obvious example) set a very confusing precedent.
>>
>> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fhadoop&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZXiKGbcB8ekfCts3JOcHVPYpX35xcqfr87Adbmf77%2f8%3d
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.org%2fsearch%2fmaven&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=bbku3kk8GRT8rNXWo5gwhRfpWIOoouH%2buNNzmrCpI0I%3d
>>
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fpkgs.
>> org%2fsearch%2fsubversion&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com
>> %7c53be77cdd3ef4dca285308d2a6dced17%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
>> 7%7c1&sdata=BEHyTF%2b6dOsaARgvSX3%2bp1gWPkiVjbg7wODXVv2tzA8%3d
>> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding policies apply in
>> both cases.
>>
>> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse set of cases of
>> how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
This is a new subscription (send an e-mail to dev-log@community.a.o for details)
Perhaps we need to consider moderated subscriptions for this list.
On 16 August 2015 at 21:33, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: 田義忠 <na...@icloud.com>
> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
> To: "dev@community.apache.org" <de...@community.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>
>> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>>>
>>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
>>> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
>>> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
>>> providing software using our trademarks.
>>>
>>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
>>> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
>>> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
>>> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>>
>>> Make sense?
>>
>> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
>> (just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
>> precedent.
>>
>> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
>> http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
>> http://pkgs.org/search/maven
>> http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
>> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
>> policies apply in both cases.
>>
>> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
>> set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
Fwd: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
This email echoing keeps happening. I thought we've dealt with it, no?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: 田義忠 <na...@icloud.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
To: "dev@community.apache.org" <de...@community.apache.org>
從我的 iPhone 傳送
> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>>
>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
>> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
>> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
>> providing software using our trademarks.
>>
>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
>> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
>> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
>> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>
>> Make sense?
>
> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
> (just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
> precedent.
>
> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
> http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
> http://pkgs.org/search/maven
> http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
> policies apply in both cases.
>
> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
> set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by 田義忠 <na...@icloud.com>.
從我的 iPhone 傳送
> Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 於 2015年8月17日 04:25 寫道：
>
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>>
>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
>> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
>> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
>> providing software using our trademarks.
>>
>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
>> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
>> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
>> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>
>> Make sense?
>
> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
> (just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
> precedent.
>
> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
> http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
> http://pkgs.org/search/maven
> http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
> policies apply in both cases.
>
> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
> set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 8/16/15 4:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>>
>> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
>> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
>> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
>> providing software using our trademarks.
>>
>> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
>> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
>> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
>> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>>
>> Make sense?
>
> It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
> (just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
> precedent.
>
> Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
> http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
> http://pkgs.org/search/maven
> http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
> and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
> policies apply in both cases.
>
> The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
> set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
OK, that will take some time. It would help if we can setup a call or
get someone to writeup a description of what those pages mean from the
larger perspective:
Trademarks are about preventing consumer confusion as to the source of
goods. So we need to consider this from the point of view of an
experienced software developer in the general sense - someone who is
*not* an Apache committer and not experienced with our products in
specific, but someone who is an experienced software developer, systems
architect, or devops type who's trying to evaluate a bunch of software
for their company.
The issue is I don't use pkgs.org (I use homebrew, but only for more
end-user applications recently), so I'm trying to translate to the
experience of an actual developer consumer who'd be trying to find and
use these products.
The problem is that trademark analyses are much easier to do for
consumer products, and for physical goods. Software is inherently
different in that "marketing brochures" or store signs or packaging is
very different, and widely varied on a whole bunch of web pages. Plus,
most of our products are highly technical: very few computer end users
are downloading Hadoop or Maven - it's software developers who are
looking for these. So understanding the common software developer
perspective on how they see *where* these named downloadable software
products are being displayed matters.
- Shane
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>
> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
> providing software using our trademarks.
>
> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>
> Make sense?
It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
(just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
precedent.
Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
http://pkgs.org/search/maven
http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
policies apply in both cases.
The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@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 actual trademark policy:
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>
> Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
> projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
> policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
> providing software using our trademarks.
>
> Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
> corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
> trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
> use our websites, software code, and brands.
>
> Make sense?
It does, but our relationships with downstream Linux vendors
(just to take the most obvious example) set a very confusing
precedent.
Shane, if would be super helpful if you took a look at:
http://pkgs.org/search/hadoop
http://pkgs.org/search/maven
http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
and pubished your narrative of how the ASF branding
policies apply in both cases.
The 3 projects I'm picking represent a pretty diverse
set of cases of how PMCs are conducting themselves.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
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
Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
providing software using our trademarks.
Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
use our websites, software code, and brands.
Make sense?
- Shane
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
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
Our release policy, as Roman originally asked about, applies only to ASF
projects, and has no bearing on third parties. However our trademark
policy, and trademark law, prevents third parties from publicly
providing software using our trademarks.
Our operational policies only apply to our projects, just like any other
corporation. Some policies, like our license itself and our formal
trademark policy, inform the rest of the world how they are allowed to
use our websites, software code, and brands.
Make sense?
- Shane
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>
>
>
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@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: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@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: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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.
Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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.