You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com> on 2007/08/19 11:49:10 UTC
Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
I like to inform you all, just for the complete picture. There is more then
the RC issue in the other thread.
On request I have to remove the Feather, see the mail below.
So other Apache Community sites are warned. And maybe customer sites with
the Apache logo must be warned.
Till now I was thinking that we where a friends Community in sake of Open
Source.
Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF and/or
Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge. And like Tom
said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Maybe
Covalent Technologies is also trying to protect there position as
distributor ?
So I will keeping www.apachelounge.com down , I do not not want to much
hassle to sort out the issues addressed here.
The forum www.apachelounge.com/forum/ shall I keep up for some time, so
users can read the posts.
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
To: "Steffen" <in...@apachelounge.com>
Cc: <pr...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 03:19
Subject: ASF issues with your site
I'd like to bring one other issue to your attention for a prompt resolution.
On the subject of the Apache mark, I note that your site uses the ASF
feather. Please note that this is the ASF's mark and cannot be used
without explicit permission. Also, you have used the Apache name
without a clear disclaimer that your site is not affiliated with the
Apache Software Foundation or the Apache httpd project.
If you would please remove the Apache feather, and indicate the site is
not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation nor the Apache httpd
Server Project, I believe this would address all of the Foundation's
concerns.
For example, if your donation banner read
"This site is not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation or
the Apache httpd Project. The site is funded entirely by me (Steffan).
By donating you will help keep this site alive and well!"
it should clarify the second issue and avoid anyone confusing your site
with the Foundation.
If you have any questions about the use of the feather or the Apache
name, please pose them to our Public Relations Committee, prc@apache.org.
They are happy to answer any questions
Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Steffen wrote:
>
> >
> > Nothing could be further from the truth.
> >
>
> Not so far, from their site:
>
> Since Covalent maintains close ties with the ASF and employees expert staff
> who work on the Apache HTTP project full time as code committers, we are
> committed to supporting our customers who use Apache HTTP either standalone
> or bundled as part of Covalent Enterprise Ready Server (ERS).
>
>
"Their" being Covalent, not the ASF.
But I don't see how that in any way "proves" your statement
that "the ASF and/or Covalent Technologies are not happy with the
Apache Lounge" or that "Covalent is trying to protect there(sic)
position"...
Bill said this himself: he acted as an individual and
not with his Covalent hat on at all. Nor with his Apache
hat on either. To claim that this is an Apache Lounge
vs. "ASF and/or Covalent" issue is clearly not the
case. Nor should it be "amazing" to anyone that the ASF
has issues with how the Apache logo or name are used.
Hate to tell you this, but we've done this to many
many others, like IBM, JBoss and yes Covalent.
> Steffen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
> Cc: <pr...@httpd.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 17:25
> Subject: Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
>
>
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Steffen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF and/or
> >> Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge. And like Tom
> >> said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Maybe
> >> Covalent Technologies is also trying to protect there position as
> >> distributor ?
> >>
> >
> > Nothing could be further from the truth.
> >
> >
>
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
Not so far, from their site:
Since Covalent maintains close ties with the ASF and employees expert staff
who work on the Apache HTTP project full time as code committers, we are
committed to supporting our customers who use Apache HTTP either standalone
or bundled as part of Covalent Enterprise Ready Server (ERS).
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Cc: <pr...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 17:25
Subject: Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
>
> On Aug 19, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Steffen wrote:
>
>>
>> Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF and/or
>> Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge. And like Tom
>> said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Maybe
>> Covalent Technologies is also trying to protect there position as
>> distributor ?
>>
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>
Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 19, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Steffen wrote:
>
> Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF
> and/or
> Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge. And
> like Tom
> said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me.
> Maybe Covalent Technologies is also trying to protect there
> position as distributor ?
>
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Re: patched sources v.s. release candidates
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 03:05:14PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> You specifically mentioned how many distros have patched sources, and
> that's true (and not an issue). What I asked was, are there distros which
> ship our release candidates before they are released, and if so, are they
> labeled as such?
I've had ports trees that carried odd-numbered trains, (2.1, 2.3), and
even yesterdays-svn (from nightly builds)!
> > Our candidates are 100% redistributable and licensed in accordance with
> > AL2.0, just like our svn trees.
>
> So you can make anything out of any combination of our svn trees, with
> whatever patches you like, as long as you give them your own name. Right?
> They are not, for example, a "release 2.2.5" until the project approves them.
Yes, and to repeat again; as long as it is made clear that it is not an
ASF release :-)
> E.g. I might have a binary "BetterScript, based on PHP sources 5.2.4 RC2",
> but I better not ship that as *the* "PHP 5.2.4". Do we agree on this,
> or not? Or are we in the mode of playing devil's advocate to spend list
> bandwidth? (Sometimes I don't know with you, Colm :-)
I'm not trying to split hairs, but the tarballs we create as RCs are
licensed AL2.0 , and there's no way we can change that. That's all I
mean, third parties can take those tarballs and redistribute them as
they wish - as long as they take all of the precautions and steps
redistributors usually should.
I'm told it would be a bad idea for them to mis-represent things by
claiming it was an ASF release, what kind of naming practises that
translates into is probably best consulted with a lawyer :/
> I'd hate to find the RC process closed, as Jim's suggested, because of
> misunderstandings about this subtle difference of opinion. The only
> thing we lose is quality of our releases.
This is not some subtle difference of opinion. You said;
"Without an announce, /dev/ tarball build doesn't belong on any external
site."
This is simply at odds with the AL2.0, so I'm saying the complete
opposite. I don't think that's subtle :-) /dev/ tarballs *are*
re-distributable, it says so right there in them, and this is
irrevokably the case.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: patched sources v.s. release candidates
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 02:40:39PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> The bottom line is that nobody took issue with Jeff's or my comments. They
>> are free to do so. Colm has this time around. His points don't quite jive,
>> if you offered a patch set and said "hey, this is the difference between
>> the ASF's 2.2.4 and my binaries here", then his point would be spot-on and
>> we'd all agree there is no issue.
>
> I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here, and what
> points jive or not.
You specifically mentioned how many distros have patched sources, and
that's true (and not an issue). What I asked was, are there distros which
ship our release candidates before they are released, and if so, are they
labeled as such?
I still think we are talking apples and oranges.
Maybe it's time to tend to our long neglected testers@ to ensure everyone
is on the same page? But I'd still maintain that keeping the RC testing
activity in one place is good for our releases (speaking as a more than
occasional RM).
> Our candidates are 100% redistributable and licensed in accordance with
> AL2.0, just like our svn trees.
So you can make anything out of any combination of our svn trees, with
whatever patches you like, as long as you give them your own name. Right?
They are not, for example, a "release 2.2.5" until the project approves them.
E.g. I might have a binary "BetterScript, based on PHP sources 5.2.4 RC2",
but I better not ship that as *the* "PHP 5.2.4". Do we agree on this,
or not? Or are we in the mode of playing devil's advocate to spend list
bandwidth? (Sometimes I don't know with you, Colm :-)
I'd hate to find the RC process closed, as Jim's suggested, because of
misunderstandings about this subtle difference of opinion. The only thing
we lose is quality of our releases.
Bill
Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 02:40:39PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> The bottom line is that nobody took issue with Jeff's or my comments. They
> are free to do so. Colm has this time around. His points don't quite jive,
> if you offered a patch set and said "hey, this is the difference between
> the ASF's 2.2.4 and my binaries here", then his point would be spot-on and
> we'd all agree there is no issue.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here, and what
points jive or not.
> I couldn't find the argument for releasing our *candidates* on
> external sites from Colm's observations.
Our candidates are 100% redistributable and licensed in accordance with
AL2.0, just like our svn trees. It says so right there in them, and
we're pretty familiar with that the AL permits. If someone wants to take
our candidates and put it on another site, they are plainly free to do
so.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
RE: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
Posted by "Peter J. Cranstone" <pe...@5o9inc.com>.
Guys,
How about everyone take a deep breath here. Right now it's about helping not hurting. It's about trying to deliver a product which clearly needs some vision to a customer base that is increasingly becoming IIS dependant (check the Netcraft numbers).
You're all missing the bigger picture. Apache is on the decline. You should be doing anything and everything to come up with a consistent, compelling, credible product that gives your customer base confidence that Apache is still relevant.
I've been watching these threads and feel for the Apache Lounge guy. I remember the wars Kevin and I went through when we tried to donate Mod_Gzip to the Apache foundation. Mod_gzip succeeded beyond all imagination, but as the saying goes "there has to be a better way" than dealing with all this nonsense.
What's important here is your customer base. It's in decline because there are too many inconsistent versions of Apache out there without any clear differentiator over the competition (Microsoft) which is starting to eat everyone's lunch.
Steffen was trying to help. How about helping him to succeed. Let's put the personalities to one side and attach the problem not the people.
Cheers,
Peter
_________________________________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
5o9, Inc.
Boulder, CO USA
Mobile: 303.809.7342 | GMT -7
Skype: Cranstone
Email: peter.cranstone@5o9inc.com
Blog: http://petercranstone.blogspot.com
Making Web Services Contextually Aware
Web site: www.5o9inc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 1:41 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
Steffen wrote:
>
> On request I have to remove the Feather, see the mail below.
You are welcome to share that private post, of course. I mailed you
privately so that you could ask any questions of the prc@ folks, and
even ask them for permission, at a more leisurely pace. I was also
trying to handle that issue more tactfully than I had the first issue.
I said (nicely)
If you would please remove the Apache feather, and indicate the site is
not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation nor the Apache httpd
Server Project, I believe this would address all of the Foundation's
concerns.
which was to say, the only issue we have with you as part of our community is
not confusing users between the ASF site and your site. By making sure your
users aren't confused you earn the goodwill of the developers and community.
Your site is part of the wider httpd user community, and that's a good thing.
Your site isn't part of the Foundation.
Our logo integrated into yours could be misleading. We have an imperative
to defend our mark, that's how trademarks work. Again, I politely offered
for you to ask prc@a.o. They are the final word, if they say to you not to
use it, don't. Or if they offered "no, we don't find that confusing, you
have permission to use it in that way", then you would be able to add 'Feather
logo used with permission of the ASF' or something similar on your own site.
Now, more about confusion. In your favor, you very clearly indicate that
it's your build and how you've gone about building it. I've supported all
of you, including Hunter, yourself and countless others when you bring back
problem reports. We don't always agree on the "one right fix", but it's
always fixed. And you are one of the first to bring us trouble reports
about a release candidate. Please don't decide we don't appreciate you if
we simply point out problems with your site.
We don't discriminate, we bring these up to all the sites where we find
such problems, as we find them. I'm sorry if you feel singled out today,
or if my tone rubbed you the wrong way.
Jeff and I offered comments in January about how you presented the release
candidate as releases. You ended the conversation that you would take
them down but you didn't see our reasoning.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200701.mbox/%3c003b01c731c3$c2e8f820$0100a8c0@mother%3e
Now, I'd offered you some of the reasoning (not all, for sure) of why it's
not a good idea *in your interests*, and also why it's not helpful to your
users if they are confused by an unreleased package. Maybe you still don't
see the reasoning. But I hoped you would understand these are not any
territorial dispute, but for your benefit. If I disliked you I would have
said nothing.
The bottom line is that nobody took issue with Jeff's or my comments. They
are free to do so. Colm has this time around. His points don't quite jive,
if you offered a patch set and said "hey, this is the difference between
the ASF's 2.2.4 and my binaries here", then his point would be spot-on and
we'd all agree there is no issue. Or change it radically and don't name it
Apache 2.2.4. That's fine too. I couldn't find the argument for releasing
our *candidates* on external sites from Colm's observations.
> So other Apache Community sites are warned. And maybe customer sites with
> the Apache logo must be warned.
We do. There is fair-use (when you see a feather on slashdot next to an
article about the foundation) and then there's the case where folks blend the
feather into their own logo, as you had, or if they use it to represent that
they are an Apache company. If you look at the other players in your space,
they aren't labeling their pages with the Apache feather. Where they are,
we politely send them a similar letter.
> Till now I was thinking that we where a friends Community in sake of Open
> Source.
Well, there are two communities, first there is the ASF. And there is also
the wider community. You participate in both, which is great.
> Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF and/or
> Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge. And like Tom
> said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Maybe
> Covalent Technologies is also trying to protect there position as
> distributor ?
No. There are plenty of distributors of Apache binaries for Windows. My
company actually left the sphere of providing 'offsite' binaries for the
community, instead - focusing on providing resources at the ASF.
And have I said anything disparaging about your providing VC2005 based
builds of Apache httpd *released* software? No. I have no issue, and no
territory to defend on this.
ALL I said was release candidates are here, remain here, discussed here
and then made available to the entire community, ApacheLounge included.
These other distributors don't ship release candidates, and if they do,
they assume the risks because they have deeper pockets than you or I do.
> So I will keeping www.apachelounge.com down , I do not not want to much
> hassle to sort out the issues addressed here.
There are two. One, release candidates, you can keep discussing. Now that
Colm and others have spoke up, we can hash that out in another thread.
The second, use of the Apache mark, is trivial to resolve. Please don't
be so incredible to claim it's a hardship or "being mean to you". Either
ask prc@ for permission or remove it from your logo. Asking for permission
isn't really that hard. prc@apache.org is happy to discuss it with you.
Either way, I ask you one final time, to please stop slandering my employer
in the matter of these posts to you. You are making this personal and reading
in much more than is there, and have squashed much of my goodwill to you.
Fix your splash page. You can attribute these comments "William A. Rowe, Jr.
(httpd project member)".
Bill
Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Steffen wrote:
>
> On request I have to remove the Feather, see the mail below.
You are welcome to share that private post, of course. I mailed you
privately so that you could ask any questions of the prc@ folks, and
even ask them for permission, at a more leisurely pace. I was also
trying to handle that issue more tactfully than I had the first issue.
I said (nicely)
If you would please remove the Apache feather, and indicate the site is
not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation nor the Apache httpd
Server Project, I believe this would address all of the Foundation's
concerns.
which was to say, the only issue we have with you as part of our community is
not confusing users between the ASF site and your site. By making sure your
users aren't confused you earn the goodwill of the developers and community.
Your site is part of the wider httpd user community, and that's a good thing.
Your site isn't part of the Foundation.
Our logo integrated into yours could be misleading. We have an imperative
to defend our mark, that's how trademarks work. Again, I politely offered
for you to ask prc@a.o. They are the final word, if they say to you not to
use it, don't. Or if they offered "no, we don't find that confusing, you
have permission to use it in that way", then you would be able to add 'Feather
logo used with permission of the ASF' or something similar on your own site.
Now, more about confusion. In your favor, you very clearly indicate that
it's your build and how you've gone about building it. I've supported all
of you, including Hunter, yourself and countless others when you bring back
problem reports. We don't always agree on the "one right fix", but it's
always fixed. And you are one of the first to bring us trouble reports
about a release candidate. Please don't decide we don't appreciate you if
we simply point out problems with your site.
We don't discriminate, we bring these up to all the sites where we find
such problems, as we find them. I'm sorry if you feel singled out today,
or if my tone rubbed you the wrong way.
Jeff and I offered comments in January about how you presented the release
candidate as releases. You ended the conversation that you would take
them down but you didn't see our reasoning.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200701.mbox/%3c003b01c731c3$c2e8f820$0100a8c0@mother%3e
Now, I'd offered you some of the reasoning (not all, for sure) of why it's
not a good idea *in your interests*, and also why it's not helpful to your
users if they are confused by an unreleased package. Maybe you still don't
see the reasoning. But I hoped you would understand these are not any
territorial dispute, but for your benefit. If I disliked you I would have
said nothing.
The bottom line is that nobody took issue with Jeff's or my comments. They
are free to do so. Colm has this time around. His points don't quite jive,
if you offered a patch set and said "hey, this is the difference between
the ASF's 2.2.4 and my binaries here", then his point would be spot-on and
we'd all agree there is no issue. Or change it radically and don't name it
Apache 2.2.4. That's fine too. I couldn't find the argument for releasing
our *candidates* on external sites from Colm's observations.
> So other Apache Community sites are warned. And maybe customer sites with
> the Apache logo must be warned.
We do. There is fair-use (when you see a feather on slashdot next to an
article about the foundation) and then there's the case where folks blend the
feather into their own logo, as you had, or if they use it to represent that
they are an Apache company. If you look at the other players in your space,
they aren't labeling their pages with the Apache feather. Where they are,
we politely send them a similar letter.
> Till now I was thinking that we where a friends Community in sake of Open
> Source.
Well, there are two communities, first there is the ASF. And there is also
the wider community. You participate in both, which is great.
> Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF and/or
> Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge. And like Tom
> said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me. Maybe
> Covalent Technologies is also trying to protect there position as
> distributor ?
No. There are plenty of distributors of Apache binaries for Windows. My
company actually left the sphere of providing 'offsite' binaries for the
community, instead - focusing on providing resources at the ASF.
And have I said anything disparaging about your providing VC2005 based
builds of Apache httpd *released* software? No. I have no issue, and no
territory to defend on this.
ALL I said was release candidates are here, remain here, discussed here
and then made available to the entire community, ApacheLounge included.
These other distributors don't ship release candidates, and if they do,
they assume the risks because they have deeper pockets than you or I do.
> So I will keeping www.apachelounge.com down , I do not not want to much
> hassle to sort out the issues addressed here.
There are two. One, release candidates, you can keep discussing. Now that
Colm and others have spoke up, we can hash that out in another thread.
The second, use of the Apache mark, is trivial to resolve. Please don't
be so incredible to claim it's a hardship or "being mean to you". Either
ask prc@ for permission or remove it from your logo. Asking for permission
isn't really that hard. prc@apache.org is happy to discuss it with you.
Either way, I ask you one final time, to please stop slandering my employer
in the matter of these posts to you. You are making this personal and reading
in much more than is there, and have squashed much of my goodwill to you.
Fix your splash page. You can attribute these comments "William A. Rowe, Jr.
(httpd project member)".
Bill
Re: Apachelounge has to remove Apachelounge Feather, be warned
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 11:49:10AM +0200, Steffen wrote:
> Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF and/or
> Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge.
You're wrong in that the ASF (and probably Covalent) are groups of
people that don't act with a single concerted will. I have no problem
with ApacheLounge. When I did windows dev, it was a great help.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net