You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "otto@apache.org" <ot...@apache.org> on 2022/07/02 17:53:47 UTC
A queston on forking and relicensing
I am (was) on the PMC for the Apache Metron project, which is now in the attic. Recently I cam a cross a project on github that is a reposting of the Apache Metron code ( no history was retained ).
metatron-x-community
What they have done ( from what I can tell ):
post the metron code
gone about renaming the directories and documentation references of metron
they have not changed to code, so the packages in java are still org.apache.metron….
there are still sloppy instances in the docs where they replace metron but not apache, so it looks like metatron is an apache project
They have not changed the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the java package META-INF directories
re-written the readme, removing all metron references
Placed a GPL–3.0 license at the root for the project
There is nothing wrong with forking.
But in terms of trademarks and licensing, this made me wonder for a second if any of this is not right, and cdutz ask me to post my question here.
Re: A queston on forking and relicensing
Posted by "otto@apache.org" <ot...@apache.org>.
Thank you all for taking the time to reply.
From: Hen <ba...@apache.org>
Reply: Hen <ba...@apache.org>
Date: July 15, 2022 at 18:34:41
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
Cc: cdutz@apache.org <cd...@apache.org>, otto@apache.org <ot...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: A queston on forking and relicensing
I'm not sure there was ever a reply that included you Otto, as Christofer indicated you were not on the list. Apologies if they did.
You can see the thread here: https://lists.apache.org/list.html?legal-discuss@apache.org
I will add that what's been done here is that someone has taken the Apache Metron codebase under Apache-2.0 to form a Metatron project, maintained the source headers, added a GPL-3.0 license that covers any additional content they add to their new project but Apache-2.0 still applies to any Apache Metron content. Fortunately Apache-2.0 and GPL-3.0 are considered in this case to be "compatible" licenses, namely they do not have clauses that would be in conflict for this situation.
Naming is interesting. Yes their rename is "cute", Apache Metron to Metatron. As long as they avoid causing confusion, this seems acceptable. Because the code is a Java codebase, the API uses the org.apache.metron terminology. Doing so for the short term to maintain APIs for users transferring over is a good thing for Apache users, but in the long term they should be renaming those. Equally they will need to rename the Maven groupIDs as we will not be permitting them to publish under those IDs (because we own that particular groupId namespace), and they shouldn't be publishing elsewhere with an implication that we are behind the releases.
Hen
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 10:54 AM otto@apache.org <ot...@apache.org> wrote:
I am (was) on the PMC for the Apache Metron project, which is now in the attic. Recently I cam a cross a project on github that is a reposting of the Apache Metron code ( no history was retained ).
metatron-x-community
What they have done ( from what I can tell ):
post the metron code
gone about renaming the directories and documentation references of metron
they have not changed to code, so the packages in java are still org.apache.metron….
there are still sloppy instances in the docs where they replace metron but not apache, so it looks like metatron is an apache project
They have not changed the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the java package META-INF directories
re-written the readme, removing all metron references
Placed a GPL–3.0 license at the root for the project
There is nothing wrong with forking.
But in terms of trademarks and licensing, this made me wonder for a second if any of this is not right, and cdutz ask me to post my question here.
Re: A queston on forking and relicensing
Posted by Hen <ba...@apache.org>.
I'm not sure there was ever a reply that included you Otto, as Christofer
indicated you were not on the list. Apologies if they did.
You can see the thread here:
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?legal-discuss@apache.org
I will add that what's been done here is that someone has taken the Apache
Metron codebase under Apache-2.0 to form a Metatron project, maintained the
source headers, added a GPL-3.0 license that covers any additional content
they add to their new project but Apache-2.0 still applies to any Apache
Metron content. Fortunately Apache-2.0 and GPL-3.0 are considered in this
case to be "compatible" licenses, namely they do not have clauses that
would be in conflict for this situation.
Naming is interesting. Yes their rename is "cute", Apache Metron to
Metatron. As long as they avoid causing confusion, this seems acceptable.
Because the code is a Java codebase, the API uses the org.apache.metron
terminology. Doing so for the short term to maintain APIs for users
transferring over is a good thing for Apache users, but in the long term
they should be renaming those. Equally they will need to rename the Maven
groupIDs as we will not be permitting them to publish under those IDs
(because we own that particular groupId namespace), and they shouldn't be
publishing elsewhere with an implication that we are behind the releases.
Hen
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 10:54 AM otto@apache.org <ot...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am (was) on the PMC for the Apache Metron
> <https://github.com/apache/metron> project, which is now in the attic.
> Recently I cam a cross a project on github that is a reposting of the
> Apache Metron code ( no history was retained ).
>
> metatron-x-community
> <https://github.com/metatroncyberwarfarelabs/metatron-x-community>
>
> What they have done ( from what I can tell ):
>
> - post the metron code
> - gone about renaming the directories and documentation references of
> metron
> - they have not changed to code, so the packages in java are still
> org.apache.metron….
> - there are still sloppy instances in the docs where they replace
> metron but not apache, so it looks like metatron is an apache project
> - They have not changed the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the java
> package META-INF directories
> - re-written the readme, removing all metron references
> - Placed a GPL–3.0 license at the root for the project
>
> There is nothing wrong with forking.
>
> But in terms of trademarks and licensing, this made me wonder for a second
> if any of this is not right, and cdutz ask me to post my question here.
>
>
>
>
Re: AW: A queston on forking and relicensing
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@links.org>.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 18:53, Christopher Schultz <
chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> All,
>
> On 7/11/22 12:20, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> > I think the original author had doubts this was actually OK to do, and I
> > was unsure. Teherefore I didn’t want to simply say “it’s ok”. By
> > confirming, that it’s legally OK to do so but not a nice thing to do, I
> > learned something.
>
> I'm surprised to learn that re-licensing the code is allowed.
>
Surely not. If it is, I'm relicensing Linux. :-)
>
> Thanks,
> -chris
>
> > *Von: *Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > *Datum: *Montag, 11. Juli 2022 um 14:43
> > *An: *legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
> > *Betreff: *Re: A queston on forking and relicensing
> >
> > I actually don't quite understand what the issue here is: what they
> > did is arguably NOT nice, but from the legal perspective the only leg
> > we have to stand on is that Metatron is too close to the original name
> > Metron.
> >
> > That's about it.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:56 AM Christofer Dutz
> > <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> could anyone please give Otto any form of response?
> >>
> >> (And please add him on cc as he said he’s not subscribed)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Von: otto@apache.org <ot...@apache.org>
> >> Datum: Samstag, 2. Juli 2022 um 19:54
> >> An: legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
> >> Cc: cdutz@apache.org <cd...@apache.org>
> >> Betreff: A queston on forking and relicensing
> >>
> >> I am (was) on the PMC for the Apache Metron project, which is now in
> the attic. Recently I cam a cross a project on github that is a reposting
> of the Apache Metron code ( no history was retained ).
> >>
> >> metatron-x-community
> >>
> >> What they have done ( from what I can tell ):
> >>
> >> · post the metron code
> >>
> >> · gone about renaming the directories and documentation references of
> metron
> >>
> >> o they have not changed to code, so the packages in java are still
> org.apache.metron….
> >>
> >> o there are still sloppy instances in the docs where they replace
> metron but not apache, so it looks like metatron is an apache project
> >>
> >> o They have not changed the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the java
> package META-INF directories
> >>
> >> · re-written the readme, removing all metron references
> >>
> >> · Placed a GPL–3.0 license at the root for the project
> >>
> >> There is nothing wrong with forking.
> >>
> >> But in terms of trademarks and licensing, this made me wonder for a
> second if any of this is not right, and cdutz ask me to post my question
> here.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: A queston on forking and relicensing
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I'm surprised to learn that re-licensing the code is allowed.
There is a subtle distinction between relicensing a package and changing the license of existing code. In this case, it sounds like they have relicensed the package but not changed the license on individual files.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: AW: A queston on forking and relicensing
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
All,
On 7/11/22 12:20, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> I think the original author had doubts this was actually OK to do, and I
> was unsure. Teherefore I didn’t want to simply say “it’s ok”. By
> confirming, that it’s legally OK to do so but not a nice thing to do, I
> learned something.
I'm surprised to learn that re-licensing the code is allowed.
Thanks,
-chris
> *Von: *Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> *Datum: *Montag, 11. Juli 2022 um 14:43
> *An: *legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
> *Betreff: *Re: A queston on forking and relicensing
>
> I actually don't quite understand what the issue here is: what they
> did is arguably NOT nice, but from the legal perspective the only leg
> we have to stand on is that Metatron is too close to the original name
> Metron.
>
> That's about it.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:56 AM Christofer Dutz
> <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> could anyone please give Otto any form of response?
>>
>> (And please add him on cc as he said he’s not subscribed)
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> Von: otto@apache.org <ot...@apache.org>
>> Datum: Samstag, 2. Juli 2022 um 19:54
>> An: legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
>> Cc: cdutz@apache.org <cd...@apache.org>
>> Betreff: A queston on forking and relicensing
>>
>> I am (was) on the PMC for the Apache Metron project, which is now in the attic. Recently I cam a cross a project on github that is a reposting of the Apache Metron code ( no history was retained ).
>>
>> metatron-x-community
>>
>> What they have done ( from what I can tell ):
>>
>> · post the metron code
>>
>> · gone about renaming the directories and documentation references of metron
>>
>> o they have not changed to code, so the packages in java are still org.apache.metron….
>>
>> o there are still sloppy instances in the docs where they replace metron but not apache, so it looks like metatron is an apache project
>>
>> o They have not changed the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the java package META-INF directories
>>
>> · re-written the readme, removing all metron references
>>
>> · Placed a GPL–3.0 license at the root for the project
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with forking.
>>
>> But in terms of trademarks and licensing, this made me wonder for a second if any of this is not right, and cdutz ask me to post my question here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
AW: A queston on forking and relicensing
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Roman,
thanks for the clarification.
I think the original author had doubts this was actually OK to do, and I was unsure. Teherefore I didn’t want to simply say “it’s ok”. By confirming, that it’s legally OK to do so but not a nice thing to do, I learned something.
Thanks,
Chris
Von: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Datum: Montag, 11. Juli 2022 um 14:43
An: legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
Betreff: Re: A queston on forking and relicensing
I actually don't quite understand what the issue here is: what they
did is arguably NOT nice, but from the legal perspective the only leg
we have to stand on is that Metatron is too close to the original name
Metron.
That's about it.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Roman.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:56 AM Christofer Dutz
<ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> could anyone please give Otto any form of response?
>
> (And please add him on cc as he said he’s not subscribed)
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von: otto@apache.org <ot...@apache.org>
> Datum: Samstag, 2. Juli 2022 um 19:54
> An: legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
> Cc: cdutz@apache.org <cd...@apache.org>
> Betreff: A queston on forking and relicensing
>
> I am (was) on the PMC for the Apache Metron project, which is now in the attic. Recently I cam a cross a project on github that is a reposting of the Apache Metron code ( no history was retained ).
>
> metatron-x-community
>
> What they have done ( from what I can tell ):
>
> · post the metron code
>
> · gone about renaming the directories and documentation references of metron
>
> o they have not changed to code, so the packages in java are still org.apache.metron….
>
> o there are still sloppy instances in the docs where they replace metron but not apache, so it looks like metatron is an apache project
>
> o They have not changed the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the java package META-INF directories
>
> · re-written the readme, removing all metron references
>
> · Placed a GPL–3.0 license at the root for the project
>
> There is nothing wrong with forking.
>
> But in terms of trademarks and licensing, this made me wonder for a second if any of this is not right, and cdutz ask me to post my question here.
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: A queston on forking and relicensing
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
I actually don't quite understand what the issue here is: what they
did is arguably NOT nice, but from the legal perspective the only leg
we have to stand on is that Metatron is too close to the original name
Metron.
That's about it.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Roman.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:56 AM Christofer Dutz
<ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> could anyone please give Otto any form of response?
>
> (And please add him on cc as he said he’s not subscribed)
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von: otto@apache.org <ot...@apache.org>
> Datum: Samstag, 2. Juli 2022 um 19:54
> An: legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
> Cc: cdutz@apache.org <cd...@apache.org>
> Betreff: A queston on forking and relicensing
>
> I am (was) on the PMC for the Apache Metron project, which is now in the attic. Recently I cam a cross a project on github that is a reposting of the Apache Metron code ( no history was retained ).
>
> metatron-x-community
>
> What they have done ( from what I can tell ):
>
> · post the metron code
>
> · gone about renaming the directories and documentation references of metron
>
> o they have not changed to code, so the packages in java are still org.apache.metron….
>
> o there are still sloppy instances in the docs where they replace metron but not apache, so it looks like metatron is an apache project
>
> o They have not changed the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the java package META-INF directories
>
> · re-written the readme, removing all metron references
>
> · Placed a GPL–3.0 license at the root for the project
>
> There is nothing wrong with forking.
>
> But in terms of trademarks and licensing, this made me wonder for a second if any of this is not right, and cdutz ask me to post my question here.
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
AW: A queston on forking and relicensing
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi all,
could anyone please give Otto any form of response?
(And please add him on cc as he said he’s not subscribed)
Chris
Von: otto@apache.org <ot...@apache.org>
Datum: Samstag, 2. Juli 2022 um 19:54
An: legal-discuss@apache.org <le...@apache.org>
Cc: cdutz@apache.org <cd...@apache.org>
Betreff: A queston on forking and relicensing
I am (was) on the PMC for the Apache Metron<https://github.com/apache/metron> project, which is now in the attic. Recently I cam a cross a project on github that is a reposting of the Apache Metron code ( no history was retained ).
metatron-x-community<https://github.com/metatroncyberwarfarelabs/metatron-x-community>
What they have done ( from what I can tell ):
· post the metron code
· gone about renaming the directories and documentation references of metron
o they have not changed to code, so the packages in java are still org.apache.metron….
o there are still sloppy instances in the docs where they replace metron but not apache, so it looks like metatron is an apache project
o They have not changed the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the java package META-INF directories
· re-written the readme, removing all metron references
· Placed a GPL–3.0 license at the root for the project
There is nothing wrong with forking.
But in terms of trademarks and licensing, this made me wonder for a second if any of this is not right, and cdutz ask me to post my question here.