Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Dec 29, 2011 6:33 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <> wrote:
> (cc'ing dev@community and setting reply-to: header so that replies
> go there)
> Hi Mike,
> First off, thanks for replying. Comments inline below:
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> > I am not an official Apache member, but here's my take on it.
> >
> > The Extras project area is for projects related to Apache, but not in
> > any way managed by the Apache Software Foundation.  Because of that,
> > it may not use the Apache brand-name, trademarks, nor the "org.apache"
> > namespace.
> It's my understanding that anyone can start up a project at Apache Extras,
> in which case, if that person doesn't have an availid here at the ASF, and
> doesn't have an ICLA on file, then that's another situation that I won't
> speculate on. What I'm much more interested in is in the situation I
> within this thread. I have an availid. I am an ASF member. I was looking
> at Apache Extras as a place to share some Apache OODT plugins that
> leverage code that is LGPL licensed, that I couldn't otherwise share
> the normal Apache OODT SVN home. Prior to me coming to Apache Extras,
> this has been code housed in an internal JPL SVN repository for years,
> before we brought the software to Apache. I'd like to use Apache Extras to
> facilitate sharing with an even broader community and to share the plugins
> we've developed (which themselves are ALv2 licensed) with others.

The ASF does not release code under any license other than the Apache
license, using Apache marks and namespaces will only serve to confuse users.

Furthermore, if we relaxed this rule them who would police it?


Reply via email to