A couple of questions:
* Is there any legal expose for the ASF in doing this. I would think
that at a minimum we would need to state that there was no endorsement
explicit or implied for any of the things listed.
* What, if any, validation would we do that the description was
accurate e.g. that XYZ Consulting actually does what is described?
Does that create any risk of endorsement?
* What are the policies for dealing with disputes and/or removal?
E.g. if ABC Co. disagrees with what XYZ said?
* Do we clean up entries after a period of time if the
project/company dies?
Should we run this by legal-discuss or is it something that has been
clarified before with other projects?
--
Jeremy
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
This came up in a previous thread.
Does anyone have a problem with a page as described above in the
Subject line? Many projects have this (e.g. http://
jakarta.apache.org/velocity/powered.html) and in my experience, it's a
great help in building community, both to show people are proud to be
using the software, as well as give info for people looking to use.
I'd suggest that :
a) Categories :
- Open-source projects powered by Geronimo
- Commercial offerings related geronimo
- products
- support and services
- etc
b) names are in alpha order to promote fairness and make things easier
to find (because we all hope this list grows really, really long... :)
c) We have some link either to the project, product and/or service
offering
I'll go forward with this assuming silent consensus as there were no
protests to the suggestion when Aaron brought it up, but would like to
see explicit support and candidates for inclusion on the list (e.g. IBM
is obvious, BEA sorta, and would like everyone that does consulting and
is willing to advertise that fact to step forward as well :)
geir
