Hi, that helps. I assumed as much (hence we put it in the Proposal) but as you can see it's already been brought up again on the mailing list so I think it's worth it to get a link to a thread with the current stance and put it in a FAQ.
Cheers, Lars On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:30 AM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Lars, > > > On Feb 23, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>> > >>> I believe it'd be good to talk with Legal and/or Trademark early on to > >> get > >>> an opinion on a few things and then later put a prominent note on that > on > >>> our website. > >> > >> It reasonably straight forward I think, as long as 3rd parties respect > the > >> Apache license, brand and it’s trademarks all is good. For instance [2] > >> > >> There may need to be a discussion around how do we license non code > stuff > >> as the ALv2 was only written with software in mind. We also need to take > >> care including stuff that under other licenses, for instance a lot of > >> content is under creative common licenses and that may or may not be > >> compatible with the apache license. [1] > >> > > > > Good points. And I agree, the current rules probably cover most of it > but I > > believe it doesn't hurt to be proactive here and just talk about the > issues > > we foresee. And you raised one of them. > > > > > >> > >>> How exactly can we do that and especially how can we market it and > refer > >> to it? > >> > >> As long as there’s no confusion with users that the compony is > >> representing the ASF or the ASF project in question, again all is good. > [3] > >> > >>> Someone else talked about "certifications" in the VOTE thread. I put > them > >>> as "out of scope" in the Proposal but that doesn't mean it can't > change. > >> > >> This has come up a couple of of time at the board level and from memory > >> it's been something the ASF don’t want to do, that doesn’t mean we > can’t > >> bring it up again. > >> > > > > I assumed as much, hence I left it out in the proposal but since it was > > raised during VOTE I assume it'll come up again. So I'd raise this as > well. > > My understanding is the same as Justin's. The board is definitely not > interested in helping companies create "certified" stamps of approval for > training/courses. > > That said, I do not see anything wrong with the training project creating > as part of its offerings things to evaluate attendees' understanding of the > materials. In other words, tests. > > I don't recall tests being discussed here. > > Craig > > > > I see all of his as content for a FAQ page on our website. > > > > Cheers, > > Lars > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> Justin > >> > >> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa < > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa> > >> 2. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#books < > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#books> > >> 3. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#notes < > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#notes> > Craig L Russell > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > c...@apache.org <mailto:c...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo < > http://db.apache.org/jdo> >
