On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I do not agree with this interpretation when viewed from a legal angle > (though I do agree from a trademark angle). I have a feeling that the root > of my disagreement is the same as the root of Jim's earlier statement > (though I may be mistaken). > You've lost me already, but let's unwind this... > There are two points of IP due diligence in an Apache project: At the > point of contribution where the IP is validated by the committer and zero > or more people who review the patch. The second phase of IP validation is > at the point of release, where 3 our more PMC members validate that the > foundation can legally release the code. > No, 3 or more PMC members make a best-effort that the code meets our qualifications for release. Not being copyright and patent atty's, we presume they did not cast their votes based on a legal definition of due diligence. > This means that taking a snapshot and building a release is *not* > trademark-acceptable since the foundation, through the project PMC has not > approved the release, therefore it is not an Apache release. > That much we agree on... Only the ASF gets to say what is an ASF release and to do so requires a > vote of the PMC. It has nothing to do with the number of changes made to > what is in our repositories. It has everything to do with whether it's a > release of the foundation. > Accurate... > So, in the strictest sense, distributions that make minor changes for > their distribution should call it Bar powered by Apache Foo in order to > differentiate it from an official release of the foundation. In the real > world the question is, from a legal point of view, do we care? > Here is where there is some room for interpretation, the httpd project can probably be built more than 10^9 different ways (I extrapolate this from a Chipotle drink cup that claimed the number of permutations of their quick-service faux-tex-mex menu) > (lets ignore the fact that some people vote on releases without doing > proper validation, that's why we require 3 +1 votes, the assumption is that > at least one of them did the job properly) > > Define "Proper", I haven't read that http://www.apache.org/dev/release/proper.html page yet. You still didn't comment on the license under which the repository is licensed, so this wasn't a terribly helpful post. From: William A Rowe Jr<mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net> > Sent: 8/20/2015 7:17 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF? > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks. > > Perhaps I could try to return it there? > > > > If a distro takes a release of Apache X, compiles it with minimal changes > > that adapt it to the environment, and distributes it, I believe that > it's a > > fine thing for them to call it simple Apache X, and acknowledge our > marks. > > > > If a distro takes a release of Apache X, and make significant changes to > > it, and then distributes it, I believe that it's not OK with us for them > to > > simply call it Apache X. I've seen some evidence that Gentoo Linux makes > a > > regular habit of this, because their policies drive them to make some > > pretty scary changes in some cases. Others may not share my view. > > > > Further, if someone takes a snapshot (small 's') from source control and > > starts from that, with minimal changes, I think that this would also be > > trademark-acceptable, so long as they accurately describe what they did. > > > > The operative concept here, as Shane has taught it, is 'confusion in the > > marketplace.' If some third party behaves so as to cause confusion as to > > the identity of Apache X, there's a trademark issue. If not, not. > > > > You summed this up to the best of my understanding ... +1. If our legal VP > agrees (and retracts earlier FUD) it appears we are entirely in agreement. >
