Chris, On 1 Feb 2014, at 07:26, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> My definition starts with a PMC that knowingly shipped a big front-facing > part of > its product that had links all over it to technical documents, youtube > videos, company > specific information and yet didn't have anything remotely resembling > Apache as a first > class citizen. > > So yes, it's more than shipping a web console from another OS Apache > License project. > You (part of the Apache ActiveMQ PMC) help to ship an Apache endorsed > release that > didn't respect Apache IMO and got the attention of trademarks and the > Apache board. It wasn’t blatant, is wasn’t deliberate - ActiveMQ has a lot of committers and a large PMC. The reality is that there are only half a dozen committers who have been consistently active on the project and have written a very large proportion of the code. If you look at the committers who are active, there’s little cross over between them and committers on hawtio. A good indication of real activity on the PMC is to look at who’s been voting for new committers or new releases - its consistently 6 or 7 people - James Strachan isn’t on that list. That’s not a good thing for the project - but its natural for a mature project to fall into this pattern. There was a genuine intention to improve the ActiveMQ project by including a new console (along side the old one) - that was clearly a mistake, but it wasn’t a blatant attempt to circumvent the Apache brand. There’s actually no branding policy which covers these situations - I’d be happy to help create one. thanks, Rob
