2015-04-08 18:33 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <[email protected]>: > Hi Guillaume, > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > > >My understanding is the following: > > * the use of "HornetQ" in all the conversations so far were referring to > >the "HornetQ code donation to the Apache ActiveMQ project". > > * the HornetQ trademarks were not transferred to the ASF > > * the "HornetQ" references in the donation have been removed in the git > >repository (for example all packages have been renamed to > >org.apache.activemq afaik) > > > >So the term "HornetQ code" is slightly abusive, as it's not hornetq > >anymore, it has been rebranded as activemq code. > > The above point is what’s under dispute. The community needs to > resolve that, and hasn’t. This is one of the center points of the > discussion. Lost in the weeds of auto bot emails (see separate > thread); and long threads over the last month, is a clear answer > on this point: “has it been rebranded”? One set of folks on the > PMC believe it has; another set believe it hasn’t and that the > process by which it was rebranded was led by the influence of a > set of folks from the same company that share a majority on the > PMC. Thanks for the pointers by everyone to the prior > discussion, but a decision must be reached to resolve this. >
The code having been rebranded is not even a question that can be disputed. It's not as if if is something "to be done". It's just a fact that can be verified in the git repo. Packages have been renamed, the distribution has been renamed, etc... HornetQ does not exists at the ASF, as a project or as subproject. The only thing is the "HornetQ code donation" which has been accepted, committed and already rebranded. What is disputed is the new name and what place this code will have in the ActiveMQ project (an additional broker or a replacement or whatever other possibility). Actually, all those concerns looks a bit weird when I think about it, given everything was done openly : the code has been accepted, the git repo has been named "activemq-6" and all the commits lead to messages on the mailing list starting with "activemq-6 git commit", and that has been this way since 5 months. So raising hands after 5 months of open development .... Of course, during the recent conversations that took place, especially when talking about the future of this code donation, the term "HornetQ" was used as a way to describe the "hornetq code donation which is now located in the activemq-6 git repository". In addition, given the clear goal was to rebrand it to activemq6 (and it has already been rebranded that way, and the first release of this code is what started all those discussions), pointing fingers at Red Hat for abusive trademarks use looks, again, really abusive to me. > > Please work together as a community to resolve it. > I'm following this flame war as I've been following some other ones previously, involving the exact same persons. The main problem here is mistrust, as people are seen to have a hidden agenda, and I'm not really sure how to help with that, I'm not a marriage conselor. In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when they all seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5 one, I don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts. I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and having 2 brokers. But I do very well know that one will be soon abandoned for a lack of committers working on the core broker. Maintaining the activemq 5 broker is fine, but I certainly fail to see how there will be an activemq 6 broker based on activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the committers on the broker are willing to work on it. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > > >So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does > >not make any sense to me. > >So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code > >currently located in the activemq6 git repository will be named, either > >activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point. > > > > > >2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <[email protected]>: > > > >> Hi Gary, > >> > >> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the > >> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion > >> the last month. The discussion is one of these options: > >> > >> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions: > >> a. ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x) > >> b. HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x) > >> > >> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions: > >> a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x) > >> <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ > >> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision > >> needs to be made. > >> > >> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes > >> Apache HornetQ (incubating) > >> > >> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You > >> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are > >> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise > >> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around > >> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing > >> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due > >> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name. > >> > >> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its > >> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying > >> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community > >> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m > >> fairly sure that this isn’t. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Gary Tully <[email protected]> > >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM > >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> Cc: <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > >> > >> >Hi Chris, > >> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just > >> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of > >> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that > >> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references > >> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent. > >> > > >> >cheers, > >> >Gary. > >> > > >> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Everyone, > >> >> > >> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ > >> >> community needs to address. > >> >> > >> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website; > >> >> branding, etc. http://hornetq.jboss.org/ > >> >> > >> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is > >> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an > >> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and > >> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into > >> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external > >> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP. If HornetQ > >> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) - > >>hornetq.jboss.org > >> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board > >> >> report. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the > >> >>community > >> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ > >>into > >> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1 > >>project > >> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must > >> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report. > >> >> > >> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the > >> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current > >> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current > >> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having > >> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a > >> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better > >> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above > >> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22 > >> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report. > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> Chris > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Greg Stein <[email protected]> > >> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM > >> >> To: <[email protected]>, ActiveMQ-Developers <[email protected] > > > >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation > >> >> > >> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the > >>individual" > >> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and > >>to > >> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; > >>again, > >> >>>as > >> >>>"Chris, the individual". > >> >>> > >> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been > >>the > >> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific > >> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's > >>note. > >> >>> > >> >>>Regards, > >> >>>Greg Stein > >> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman > >> >>> > >> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which > >> >>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important > >> >>>> project and community. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> As such: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in > >> >>>>ActiveMQ. > >> >>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF > >>umbrella > >> >>>>of > >> >>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; > >>another > >> >>>>is > >> >>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start > >>off > >> >>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, > >>has > >> >>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job > >>of > >> >>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that > >>job > >> >>>>is > >> >>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly > >> >>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active > >> >>>> action is required by the board. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC > >>and a > >> >>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project, > >> >>>> or as 2 distinct projects. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>... > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
