You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Gert Vanthienen <ge...@gmail.com> on 2011/04/06 08:48:36 UTC
FAQ for apache-extras.org
L.S.,
In the FAQ at apache-extras.org (
http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html ) it says
"Therefore, we require project owners to respect the Apache Software
Foundation trademark policy, including 1) not using Apache or an
existing Apache project name in your Apache Extras project name, and
2) not using org.apache as the prefix for your bundle or package name.
"
While creating a project called servicemix-extra, this was seemingly
in violation with part 1) because we do in include ServiceMix in the
Apache Extras project name. Since there are already a lot of projects
out there that have the same naming convention, I suspect the FAQ
entry should read something like...
"Therefore, we require project owners to respect the Apache Software
Foundation trademark policy, including 1) not using Apache in your
Apache Extras project name, 2) not using an existing Apache project
name as your Apache Extras project name, and 3) not using org.apache
as the prefix for your bundle or package name. "
Is this the correct interpretation of the given FAQ entry? If so,
shouldn't we update the entry to avoid confusing simple souls like
myself?
Regards,
Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
Re: FAQ for apache-extras.org
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Shane Curcuru wrote on Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:38:04 -0400:
>> Given the fact that in this case, we already know the people running
>> the project, and the fact that we exercise some control over the
>> apache-extras.org domain and hosting itself, I'd feel comfortable in
>> having a much more liberal "licensing" policy for projects at Apache
>> Extras.
>
> IANL, but did you put the word "licensing" in quotes?
Yes, I put the word "licensing" in quotes, because I'm pretty tired
today and didn't mean to say specific legal licenses, but wasn't sure
how to express it. Certainly not great grammar but my brain wasn't
finding the right word today.
- Shane
Re: FAQ for apache-extras.org
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Apologies, please ignore that "H". Left my laptop within reach of my toddler.
...ant
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:55 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> H
>
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2011, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> Shane Curcuru wrote on Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:38:04 -0400:
>>> Given the fact that in this case, we already know the people running
>>> the project, and the fact that we exercise some control over the
>>> apache-extras.org domain and hosting itself, I'd feel comfortable in
>>> having a much more liberal "licensing" policy for projects at Apache
>>> Extras.
>>
>> IANL, but did you put the word "licensing" in quotes?
>>
>
Re: FAQ for apache-extras.org
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
H
On Wednesday, April 6, 2011, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Shane Curcuru wrote on Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:38:04 -0400:
>> Given the fact that in this case, we already know the people running
>> the project, and the fact that we exercise some control over the
>> apache-extras.org domain and hosting itself, I'd feel comfortable in
>> having a much more liberal "licensing" policy for projects at Apache
>> Extras.
>
> IANL, but did you put the word "licensing" in quotes?
>
Re: FAQ for apache-extras.org
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Shane Curcuru wrote on Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:38:04 -0400:
> Given the fact that in this case, we already know the people running
> the project, and the fact that we exercise some control over the
> apache-extras.org domain and hosting itself, I'd feel comfortable in
> having a much more liberal "licensing" policy for projects at Apache
> Extras.
IANL, but did you put the word "licensing" in quotes?
Re: FAQ for apache-extras.org
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
That part of the FAQ is under the control of the trademarks committee.
So I'm copying to that list.
As a reminder, our policy is not to police apache-extras.org unless
there is a complaint from an Apache Project.
Ross
On 06/04/2011 07:48, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
> L.S.,
>
>
> In the FAQ at apache-extras.org (
> http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html ) it says
>
> "Therefore, we require project owners to respect the Apache Software
> Foundation trademark policy, including 1) not using Apache or an
> existing Apache project name in your Apache Extras project name, and
> 2) not using org.apache as the prefix for your bundle or package name.
> "
>
> While creating a project called servicemix-extra, this was seemingly
> in violation with part 1) because we do in include ServiceMix in the
> Apache Extras project name. Since there are already a lot of projects
> out there that have the same naming convention, I suspect the FAQ
> entry should read something like...
>
> "Therefore, we require project owners to respect the Apache Software
> Foundation trademark policy, including 1) not using Apache in your
> Apache Extras project name, 2) not using an existing Apache project
> name as your Apache Extras project name, and 3) not using org.apache
> as the prefix for your bundle or package name. "
>
> Is this the correct interpretation of the given FAQ entry? If so,
> shouldn't we update the entry to avoid confusing simple souls like
> myself?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
--
rgardler@apache.org
@rgardler