Among the conversations above, there is no policy violation, but uncertainty for the company that donates its software.
To overcome uncertainty, IMO, time and stories help. @tanruixiang share one, and I'll talk a bit about others. > “HoraeDB” is used, whereas “CeresDB” should be used in several cases. I don't see if anywhere “CeresDB” should be used. If so, HoraeDB will change. The org name is where it leaves now and shall not to change. This is the same as datafuselabs/opendal doesn't change its org name before proposing for incubation. The same for its doc site ceresdb.github.io/docs, this is associated with GitHub org. Others will be changed and is tracked at https://github.com/CeresDB/horaedb/issues/1319. For why not change the license header, it's my fault that I suppose to rename it into ASF license header after entering the incubator, so that we don't introduce twice large license header changeset. But the rename is decided so we can move forward anyway. > It looks like the rename was only done a couple of weeks ago. Also, I don't think the time itself is an issue but the trust and certainty, because Pekko renames all its references to Akka after entering the incubator. The story is that, if Ant Group doesn't want to donate the software, there is no necessity to change the name. Ant Group approved to donate the software, @chunshao90 and @jiacai2050 started to rename the repo, text occurrence, and dependencies. @jiacai2050 asked me if we should change the name in the license header, and I regarded it can be a post-donate action as stated above. I went through the incubator proposals and found IgniteProposal[1] chose a new name before it was donated by GridGain Systems, Inc. which is internally known as "GridGain In-Memory Computing Platform". I know there are a few companies/individuals just use Ignite and/or contribute and few people know that Ignite has some relationship with GridGain Systems, Inc. > That was not given as the reason. So, Justin, your comment is not a reason also, but a suspect for uncertainty if "some entities have taken unfair advantage of this". This is neither provable nor unfalsifiable. I may understand your suspect, and I choose to trust the initial group. And if you find any concerns that may hurt the "Daul branding", point them out and let the "PPMC" correct it (just like a few people pointed out "Answer Cloud" issue). Best, tison. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/IgniteProposal 谭睿翔 <tanruixi...@apache.org> 于2023年11月28日周二 20:33写道： > > Hi Justin, I am a student from Zhejiang University, one of the initial > committers of HoraeDB. I just want to talk about my feelings. I've been > involved in the HoraeDB community for more than half a year now. In the > process of participating in HoraeDB community, I have been respected and > helped by the community. In the process of participation, I can easily get > the contextual information of Issue or pr, and I didn't encounter the > so-called private pr only within the company. I think the maintainers of > HoraeDB community are working very hard to make the community more > diversified, and my being nominated as the initial committer as a student > is an example of that. I believe that the maintainers of HoraeDB are > passionate about open source and I don't see them doing anything that would > be harmful to the community. This is how I feel about my involvement in > HoraeDB. > > Best Regards, > Ruixiang Tan. > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2023年11月28日周二 19:30写道： > > > To be clear, when I wrote "I worked with", it doesn't mean we're > > colleagues. But I work with other initial committers in the community. > > > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com>于2023年11月28日 周二19:15写道： > > > > > Thanks for your reply, Justin. Now I understand your concern more > > > concretely. > > > > > > I'll share three points here: > > > > > > 1. First of all, the trademark policy must be followed for the new > > > PPMC. The PPMC will protect the trademark with the guide of trademark > > > policy[1][2]. It's part of the road during the incubation. > > > > > > 2. I worked with the people for a while, and I trust their motivation > > > for running a diverse community. It's impossible to prove, but we can > > > do a few exercises as your new reply. > > > > > > > whereas “CeresDB” should be used in several cases > > > > > > **This is a concern. I'll check it with the initial group, resolve it, > > > and then go back to the list. I hope this is a signal that the project > > > is actively reacting to this concern,**[3] > > > > > > ... although I may regard it as a post-donate action (Answer Cloud is > > > removed after entering the incubator[4]. I did it, followed by some > > > others from Answer's committers). > > > > > > > some entities have taken unfair advantage of this > > > > > > It's also unfair to judge a new incubator proposal to assume, in > > > advance, that they will do something evil. > > > > > > Best, > > > tison. > > > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ > > > [2] https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/policies > > > [3] https://github.com/CeresDB/horaedb/issues/1319 > > > [4] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-answer-website/commit/e807a7af5e48b3dfb505854f029753daf480362f > > > > > > Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 于2023年11月28日周二 18:27写道： > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:12 PM Justin Mclean < > > jus...@classsoftware.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > We need to know the reasons for the name change and why the company > > is > > > willing to donate the code but not the name. The possibility of having > > them > > > forking the community later is a risk the Incubator needs to know about > > and > > > should be mentioned in the proposal. Having a brand closely associated > > with > > > a project and owned by a single corporate entity is a risk to the > > project. > > > Why a company would be unwilling to give up that brand or trademark just > > > because it may be convenient in the future is a concern. > > > > > > > > While I agree that having a clear reason stated would be helpful, I > > > > think I have a different take on the risks you are outlining here. > > > > > > > > We have tons of examples here in the ASF of project Foo being used to > > > > power commercial product Bar (Geode/Gemfire, Ignite/GridGain, > > > > Kafka/Confluent, and many, many more). So this kind of dual branding > > > > is nothing new -- there's no community fork involved per se. > > > > > > > > It would be nice if the original name of the open source project (as > > > > it existed on Github) was donated to ASF and the new name for a > > > > commercially developed product was picked. But even if it is the other > > > > way around -- I actually don't see any risks for the foundation in > > > > this approach (as long as it is clearly understood that the branding > > > > guidelines on both sides need to be honored). > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Roman. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
