Re: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32
+1 (binding) have fun jan i On Friday, August 28, 2015, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Tim, there were a couple of additional IPMC votes you can close the vote with a result thread: http://markmail.org/thread/h7pwrlvoousj6x2q -Original Message- From: Tim Barham [mailto:tim.bar...@microsoft.com javascript:;] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:59 PM To: d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org javascript:;; general@incubator.apache.org javascript:; Subject: RE: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32 Ping! Any takers for a final IPMC vote? This should be a fairly easy one to validate, as there were very few changes since the last release (but one of those is an important fix we need to get out). Thanks! Tim -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com javascript:;] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 8:57 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org javascript:;; d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org javascript:; Subject: RE: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32 Moving comdev to BCC, adding dev@ripple as it should have been Ross From: Ross Gardler Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 2:43 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org javascript:;; ComDev d...@community.apache.org javascript:; Subject: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32 A vote is underway on the Ripple Dev list for release 0.9.32. The Ripple dev thread can be found at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmail-archives.apache.org%2fmod_mbox%2fincubator-ripple-dev%2f201508.mbox%2fbrowserdata=01%7c01%7cTBARHAM%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7ce1d3b634899b402cd20608d2abb24e57%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=43vQT6hSifbgEkNuLz4V7ZvDjpgz1NwXPvm5dmWGW4I%3d The text of the initial vote email is copied below for your convenience. At this point we have 2 IPMC votes and 3 PPMC votes, I request IPMC members to look over the VOTE for us: --- pasted initial VOTE text from https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmail-archives.apache.org%2fmod_mbox%2fincubator-ripple-dev%2f201508.mbox%2fbrowserdata=01%7c01%7cTBARHAM%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7ce1d3b634899b402cd20608d2abb24e57%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=43vQT6hSifbgEkNuLz4V7ZvDjpgz1NwXPvm5dmWGW4I%3d --- [Since 0.9.31 was a bust because of a regression, here is another release that includes a fix for that regression (and a couple of other minor fixes)] Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.32. The package you are voting on is available for review at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdist.apache.org%2frepos%2fdist%2fdev%2fincubator%2fripple%2f.data=01%7c01%7cTBARHAM%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7ce1d3b634899b402cd20608d2abb24e57%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=yzBC3iO7dBinoVeu5LWkbr6S8G9a4r9xX9N3jlvBTuM%3d The SHA-1 hash for the package is: 63a997594e4f08df8d48a644962b47bee4efd91e It was published from its corresponding git tag: incubator-ripple: 0.9.32 (f8c6a0bc99) While we need three +1 *binding* votes (which for an Apache Incubator project like Ripple means Apache IPMC members), active Ripple contributors and committers/PPMC members are still encouraged to review the release and vote. Before voting +1, please refer to and verify compliance with the checklist at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fincubator.apache.org%2fguides%2freleasemanagement.html%23check-listdata=01%7c01%7cTBARHAM%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7ce1d3b634899b402cd20608d2abb24e57%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=ESF8QLBAKhBz21HyHiyNLfrPBHUp7eA8FJHIcyttfYQ%3d (however, we only need to consider changes since the previous release). If you do vote +1, please include the steps you took in order to be confident the release meets requirements. Upon a successful vote, I will upload the archive to dist/release/incubator/ripple and publish it to NPM. I vote +1: * Verified license headers with Apache RAT (using 'jake rat'). * Manually verified there were no new source files that need license headers, nor new third party dependencies that needed to have license information included in the LICENSE file. * Verified the build works and all tests pass. * Manually tested all changes that have been made since the last release. Thanks! Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org javascript:; -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
RE: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32
Ping! Any takers for a final IPMC vote? This should be a fairly easy one to validate, as there were very few changes since the last release (but one of those is an important fix we need to get out). Thanks! Tim -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 8:57 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org; d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32 Moving comdev to BCC, adding dev@ripple as it should have been Ross From: Ross Gardler Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 2:43 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org; ComDev d...@community.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Ripple Release 0.9.32 A vote is underway on the Ripple Dev list for release 0.9.32. The Ripple dev thread can be found at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmail-archives.apache.org%2fmod_mbox%2fincubator-ripple-dev%2f201508.mbox%2fbrowserdata=01%7c01%7cTBARHAM%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7ce1d3b634899b402cd20608d2abb24e57%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=43vQT6hSifbgEkNuLz4V7ZvDjpgz1NwXPvm5dmWGW4I%3d The text of the initial vote email is copied below for your convenience. At this point we have 2 IPMC votes and 3 PPMC votes, I request IPMC members to look over the VOTE for us: --- pasted initial VOTE text from https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmail-archives.apache.org%2fmod_mbox%2fincubator-ripple-dev%2f201508.mbox%2fbrowserdata=01%7c01%7cTBARHAM%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7ce1d3b634899b402cd20608d2abb24e57%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=43vQT6hSifbgEkNuLz4V7ZvDjpgz1NwXPvm5dmWGW4I%3d --- [Since 0.9.31 was a bust because of a regression, here is another release that includes a fix for that regression (and a couple of other minor fixes)] Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.32. The package you are voting on is available for review at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdist.apache.org%2frepos%2fdist%2fdev%2fincubator%2fripple%2f.data=01%7c01%7cTBARHAM%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7ce1d3b634899b402cd20608d2abb24e57%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=yzBC3iO7dBinoVeu5LWkbr6S8G9a4r9xX9N3jlvBTuM%3d The SHA-1 hash for the package is: 63a997594e4f08df8d48a644962b47bee4efd91e It was published from its corresponding git tag: incubator-ripple: 0.9.32 (f8c6a0bc99) While we need three +1 *binding* votes (which for an Apache Incubator project like Ripple means Apache IPMC members), active Ripple contributors and committers/PPMC members are still encouraged to review the release and vote. Before voting +1, please refer to and verify compliance with the checklist at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fincubator.apache.org%2fguides%2freleasemanagement.html%23check-listdata=01%7c01%7cTBARHAM%40064d.mgd.microsoft.com%7ce1d3b634899b402cd20608d2abb24e57%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=ESF8QLBAKhBz21HyHiyNLfrPBHUp7eA8FJHIcyttfYQ%3d (however, we only need to consider changes since the previous release). If you do vote +1, please include the steps you took in order to be confident the release meets requirements. Upon a successful vote, I will upload the archive to dist/release/incubator/ripple and publish it to NPM. I vote +1: * Verified license headers with Apache RAT (using 'jake rat'). * Manually verified there were no new source files that need license headers, nor new third party dependencies that needed to have license information included in the LICENSE file. * Verified the build works and all tests pass. * Manually tested all changes that have been made since the last release. Thanks! Tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
(Please note mixed private/public lists) On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff: 1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there. 2. The package description should call out those cases where there are significant deviations from the official distributions. Significant deviations will be determined by the individual PMCs as they know what is significant and what is not. That leaves the technical package name. Is using our mark in the technical package name (which cannot have space to ACK the mark, but assuming there is an ACK of the mark in the description) an issue? So if we have: package-name: foo description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo. Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar. Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation. is the Manchu packaging of Foo ok to use foo as the package name? It would seem to be a disservice to users to force Manchu to pick a different name for Foo (i.e. the firefox vs iceweasel issue) Correct. For the ASF's purposes, if it is essentially unmodified software - or only modified in the normal and well-understood way to fit into that particular platform or distro - then we want the packager to use our actual product names. We definitely should ask for trademark attributions in descriptions or other well-known places. The actual implementation and enforcement of that is a question that depends on the situation. In many cases, if it's simple packaging that truly is just doing the right thing from our perspective, legal attribution probably isn't that big a deal. In particular, a lot of the importance depends on what a well-informed consumer would expect from that particular well-known packaging system. I.e. if the packager is doing what is normal and expected - even if that changes some of the software from our product - it's probably fine. On the other hand, packaging up Apache Foo for the Manchu installer framework may require significant patching of Apache Foo such that it is necessary to declare that it is *based on Apache Foo* Compare and contrast with homebrew's packaging of Apache Maven where they just download the convenience binary published by the Apache Maven team... that seems reasonable to be called `maven` because it is actually installing exactly what the Apache Maven team released without modifications. Shane, do you need further clarifications? Thanks for the excellent distillation of the technical aspects. This is definitely a question we need to draft a clear policy for, so that we can have a consistent way we ask packagers to do things. Trademark law is well established for consumer products, but less so for highly technical software products and different ways that the products are offered to the public. So I need a clear question to bring to counsel to get their perspective on what we should cover. The easiest way to see the applicability of trademarks is to provide a description of an end-users view of the process. Could someone here come up with a description of the process that an end-user would go through when they're trying to get a specific Apache product using one of these methods? I.e. assume you're a developer or sysadmin who is *not* an Apache committer. You know you need to get a software project management tool for the linux machines you maintain, and you've heard of something called Maven. - What is the actual process by which you'd find out how to get this software (i.e. you'd search for it), and how you'd actually install it? - How would you normally detect if you're getting the original Maven software, versus some different software - either a different vendor's version, or perhaps a bogus version with adware in it, or perhaps some non-standard version that is apparently popular, but is *not* the default version used on your platform? * Separately: does anyone have links to any trademark/branding policy pages that common package managers have out there? I'm wondering what policy or best practices that are *clearly documented* is already out there for the actual linux distros or package management systems is. Thanks. - Shane On 25 August 2015 at 11:52, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical name usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark. Makes two of us. I see a log of good consensus on this thread which helps me get a gut feel on what is the right way to go about enforcing the use of the mark. That said, I still would love to read Shane's meditation on the matter ;-) Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.4.0-incubating
Forwarding my vote from the Calcite community vote: +1 (binding) Julian On Aug 28, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Jacques Nadeau jacq...@apache.org wrote: Thanks for helping clarify Marvin. I didn't realize that Julian was an IPMC. I was only counting the two mentors that voted in our vote. On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Jacques Nadeau jacq...@apache.org wrote: Vote result: 8 binding +1 votes 1 non-binding +1 votes No -1 votes http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-calcite-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DPUH70eyPY3u25O4ayimwOXfBBxiX2txUEcNbUCYODXg%40mail.gmail.com%3E To remove the ambiguity: three IPMC members have voted +1: Ashutosh Chauhan, Julian Hyde, and Alan Gates. Marvin Humphrey - 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
Re: apache binary distributions
Please read all the emails in a thread before responding. Nuff said. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Dave, please bring specific, concrete details of alleged ASF Trademark abuse by The Document Foundation to the AOO PMC private list. Alternatively, take them privately to the trademarks@ a.o list and also get clarification on what qualifies as trademark abuse. Please. This is not the place for such allegations. -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 16:21 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: apache binary distributions Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice. How do we find a policy where can get Linux distributions near compliance. [ ... ] - 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
[RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Hi thanks for voting, we have 3 +1 , 0 +0, 0 -1. We will continue making the release artifacts. rgds jan i. On 23 August 2015 at 13:43, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, +1 binding I checked: - signatures and hashes correct - file names contain incubator rather than incubating - but intent is clear - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binary files I wasn’t to able to compile from source as I don’t have the correct environment set up, but I could follow the build instructions. Please fix the release artefact name for the net release - incubating rather than incubator. Things you may want to think about changing of for the next release, however none are actually required. - put the hashes in .md5 / .sha files rather than CHECKSUMS (tends to be the way it’s done) - have the version number in the unzipped directory (incubator-corinthia) - InfoPlist.strings has zero real content so an Apache header not needed but could be added for completeness - Be nice to have the build instruction in the release and not referenced via a URL (as the URL and it’s contents may change) Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
/me notes the mixed public and private lists I.e. assume you're a developer or sysadmin who is *not* an Apache committer. You know you need to get a software project management tool for the linux machines you maintain, and you've heard of something called Maven. - What is the actual process by which you'd find out how to get this software (i.e. you'd search for it), and how you'd actually install it? If I wanted to install maven, I'd do: yum install maven3 or apt-get install maven - How would you normally detect if you're getting the original Maven software, versus some different software - either a different vendor's version, or perhaps a bogus version with adware in it, or perhaps some non-standard version that is apparently popular, but is *not* the default version used on your platform? So some of this is choice. By default your distribution is going to have package repositories enabled for software the distribution packages. So if the distribution packages the software, you presumably trust the distribution to provide you with legitimate software. (if you can't trust your kernel and things like binutils, why bother worrying about anything else) The distributions sign their packages, and the package management system verifies that signature prior to installation. Third parties (to the distribution) may also provide package repositories. Cassandra, for instance, does this. They have a debian package repository for the various versions of Cassandra. You can manually configure your system to access that package repository, configure it to trust the published signing key, and then things like 'apt-get install cassandra' work, and you get cassandra from a third party repository (in this case from the project itself) Of course, anyone could setup a package repository - Shapeblue for instance has done that for CloudStack - they run a package repository and ship RPM and deb packages from it of Apache CloudStack. http://www.shapeblue.com/packages/ How do you know they haven't tampered with it or modified it heavily? You don't - they aren't providing the source packages, so know way of knowing how they are built. --David * Separately: does anyone have links to any trademark/branding policy pages that common package managers have out there? I'm wondering what policy or best practices that are *clearly documented* is already out there for the actual linux distros or package management systems is. The only folks that I know of that have a policy explicitly dealing with this is Mozilla. Their is a lot of drama within the distributions about how this is/was handled. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/ (read down to the software distribution section) Essentially, Mozilla says that you may distribute your own compiled version of their software, using their marks, only if it is built from unaltered source. In practice this is a bit more difficult. Having packaged software for Fedora and a few other distributions, it's not uncommon to need to patch something. Sometimes it's environment related (your stuff won't build with the latest glibc), sometimes it's related to how things gets built. In Mozilla's case, they require approval of any patches applied to source, before it's distributed. Debian decided it was too much, and not free enough, and thus we have Iceweasel and Icedove instead of Firefox and Thunderbird. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice. How do we find a policy where can get Linux distributions near compliance. Since LO rebased and declared a new license we can impute how much of that is really AL 2 via a diff. If the LO code is a nominal percent Apache OO then we say it is sufficient to be based on Apache. If they move below that percent then they are no longer compliant. To stay compliant they can contribute upstream and help us have a source release that they can remain compliant against. Essentially we use the trademark as a honey trap to stay relevant. Purity will never happen. Anyone that has a distro that is sufficiently close can then get a powered by use of the mark. If we can't do a binary for a platform then we can point users to all of the powered by binaries. The SVN model. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [Not cross-posting to a private list.] Dave, I don't exactly understand what it is expected that trademarks@ would be doing or clarifying with regard to your specific Foo Manchu case. Please explain what you mean by a percentage. - Dennis PS: How do you see a case where the Manchu project makes nothing more than nominative mentions of Foo and Foo is not used at all in the naming of the Manchu product? Are specific instances of the use of Foo in a manner that would confuse Manchu with Foo what you have in mind for bringing to an Apache Foo PMC? PPS: I assume we are talking about something other than how third parties use and attribute ALv2 licensed code one way or another. I'm not certain how trademark enters there. There is related discussion on legal-discuss, however. -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35 To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: tradema...@apache.org; stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com Subject: Re: apache binary distributions Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: (Please note mixed private/public lists) On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: [ ... ] package-name: foo description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo. Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar. Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation. Foo = OpenOffice Manchu = LibreOffice This is the reality in Linuxland without the attribution. This has been going on for sometime. I think since prior to Oracle's grant. Rolling that back should be a goal for the PMC. Maybe we diff the codebases and accept a percentage. This standard might the encourage upstream contribution. I would like to formulate this idea for the AOO dev list. The above has really helped me crystallize what I've been kicking around in my mind for months and months. Thoughts before I take it there? I know I'm not following Shane's thoughts below. OpenOffice is uniquely problematic. Regards, Dave [ ... ] - 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
Re: [DISCUSS] HAWQ Incubation Proposal
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! I would like to start a discussion on accepting HAWQ into ASF Incubator. The proposal is available at: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/HAWQProposal and is also attached to the end of this email. If HAWQ desires more mentors, I'd be willing to be included as well. Justin, thanks a million for volunteering! I've included you on the proposal. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] HAWQ Incubation Proposal
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: ... There's some GPL/LGPL stuff in there, IMO the proposal should include a plan for coping with those. Can you help me understand which bits of those dependencies do you see as problematic?... They are not necessarily problematic but the podling needs to be aware of the GPL/LGPL mentions at http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html and evaluate those dependencies accordingly. I didn't see a mention of that in the proposal. Good point. I called it out explicitly now. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] HAWQ Incubation Proposal
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: ...most of the core developers are currently NOT affiliated with the ASF and would require new ICLAs before committing to the project ... == Affiliations == ... * Pivotal: everyone else on this proposal... So IIUC that's about 50 committers from the same company and most of them don't have experience with open source, or at least not at the ASF. Well, like the proposal says -- most don't but at least ~10 do (those are the same guys working on Geode). Doesn't that drastically lower the chances of the project creating a diverse community? I would much prefer a smaller list of initial committers who have been identified as having experience or a solid potential to be ASF committers, and let others be elected based on merit as the project progresses. I would agree that this could be a problem if the project didn't have enough active mentors to help a large # of folks master the Apache Way. With Justin volunteering at this point we've got 6 very active, very experienced mentors. I really don't think the # of committers should be a problem. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: apache binary distributions
[Not cross-posting to a private list.] Dave, I don't exactly understand what it is expected that trademarks@ would be doing or clarifying with regard to your specific Foo Manchu case. Please explain what you mean by a percentage. - Dennis PS: How do you see a case where the Manchu project makes nothing more than nominative mentions of Foo and Foo is not used at all in the naming of the Manchu product? Are specific instances of the use of Foo in a manner that would confuse Manchu with Foo what you have in mind for bringing to an Apache Foo PMC? PPS: I assume we are talking about something other than how third parties use and attribute ALv2 licensed code one way or another. I'm not certain how trademark enters there. There is related discussion on legal-discuss, however. -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35 To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: tradema...@apache.org; stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com Subject: Re: apache binary distributions Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: (Please note mixed private/public lists) On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: [ ... ] package-name: foo description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo. Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar. Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation. Foo = OpenOffice Manchu = LibreOffice This is the reality in Linuxland without the attribution. This has been going on for sometime. I think since prior to Oracle's grant. Rolling that back should be a goal for the PMC. Maybe we diff the codebases and accept a percentage. This standard might the encourage upstream contribution. I would like to formulate this idea for the AOO dev list. The above has really helped me crystallize what I've been kicking around in my mind for months and months. Thoughts before I take it there? I know I'm not following Shane's thoughts below. OpenOffice is uniquely problematic. Regards, Dave [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: BatchEE Report - why are they monthly
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:12 AM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: I believe the BatchEE podling is incorrectly set to monthly reports. If I look at the schedule, they should have reported in June, but were late and reported in July. I believe they should have been taken off monthly but weren't and as a result were expected to report in August (and now September). Unless there are objections I'm going to remove them from the report and fix their monthly attribute. I've taken care of fixing podlings.xml and the September2015 report wiki page. BatchEE's last report was 2 months late, so they actually *we're* scheduled to report last month. I've taken the liberty of moving the podling to another quarterly group. That's not ordinarily how it's done, but otherwise there would have been a four month gap between reports. The next report will be due in October. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.4.0-incubating
Hi all, The Calcite community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache Calcite 1.4.0-incubating. Proposal: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-calcite-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DWA1s03rUEuCUbUbWiBgmC_9N%3D1r39dXjLAKevRt6UCQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E Vote result: 8 binding +1 votes 1 non-binding +1 votes No -1 votes http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-calcite-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DPUH70eyPY3u25O4ayimwOXfBBxiX2txUEcNbUCYODXg%40mail.gmail.com%3E The commit to be voted upon: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-calcite/commit/0c0c203daec56c05b6c75fa3896c8af19844df68 Its hash is 0c0c203daec56c05b6c75fa3896c8af19844df68. The artifacts to be voted on are located here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/calcite/apache-calcite-1.4.0-incubating-rc0 The hashes of the artifacts are as follows: src.tar.gz.md5 e052e2b1ffdbdab9eaeb30f4ac838e75 src.tar.gz.sha1 fd979e8b330bb0d3b9be8625c95589e0eb358722 src.zip.md5 ef1880617f3b6415c5e3779d9c2bbc10 src.zip.sha1 b865a9a45046a339c53834e7abea7a7a55927f07 A staged Maven repository is available for review at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecalcite-1009 Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/jacques.asc Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy and with the endorsement of 2 of our mentors we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish the release. The vote is open for 72 hours, or until the necessary number of votes (3 +1) is reached. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Calcite 1.4.0-incubating [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... Jacques Nadeau, on behalf of Apache Calcite PPMC
Re: apache binary distributions
Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: (Please note mixed private/public lists) On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff: 1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there. 2. The package description should call out those cases where there are significant deviations from the official distributions. Significant deviations will be determined by the individual PMCs as they know what is significant and what is not. That leaves the technical package name. Is using our mark in the technical package name (which cannot have space to ACK the mark, but assuming there is an ACK of the mark in the description) an issue? So if we have: package-name: foo description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo. Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar. Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation. Foo = OpenOffice Manchu = LibreOffice This is the reality in Linuxland without the attribution. This has been going on for sometime. I think since prior to Oracle's grant. Rolling that back should be a goal for the PMC. Maybe we diff the codebases and accept a percentage. This standard might the encourage upstream contribution. I would like to formulate this idea for the AOO dev list. The above has really helped me crystallize what I've been kicking around in my mind for months and months. Thoughts before I take it there? I know I'm not following Shane's thoughts below. OpenOffice is uniquely problematic. Regards, Dave is the Manchu packaging of Foo ok to use foo as the package name? It would seem to be a disservice to users to force Manchu to pick a different name for Foo (i.e. the firefox vs iceweasel issue) Correct. For the ASF's purposes, if it is essentially unmodified software - or only modified in the normal and well-understood way to fit into that particular platform or distro - then we want the packager to use our actual product names. We definitely should ask for trademark attributions in descriptions or other well-known places. The actual implementation and enforcement of that is a question that depends on the situation. In many cases, if it's simple packaging that truly is just doing the right thing from our perspective, legal attribution probably isn't that big a deal. In particular, a lot of the importance depends on what a well-informed consumer would expect from that particular well-known packaging system. I.e. if the packager is doing what is normal and expected - even if that changes some of the software from our product - it's probably fine. On the other hand, packaging up Apache Foo for the Manchu installer framework may require significant patching of Apache Foo such that it is necessary to declare that it is *based on Apache Foo* Compare and contrast with homebrew's packaging of Apache Maven where they just download the convenience binary published by the Apache Maven team... that seems reasonable to be called `maven` because it is actually installing exactly what the Apache Maven team released without modifications. Shane, do you need further clarifications? Thanks for the excellent distillation of the technical aspects. This is definitely a question we need to draft a clear policy for, so that we can have a consistent way we ask packagers to do things. Trademark law is well established for consumer products, but less so for highly technical software products and different ways that the products are offered to the public. So I need a clear question to bring to counsel to get their perspective on what we should cover. The easiest way to see the applicability of trademarks is to provide a description of an end-users view of the process. Could someone here come up with a description of the process that an end-user would go through when they're trying to get a specific Apache product using one of these methods? I.e. assume you're a developer or sysadmin who is *not* an Apache committer. You know you need to get a software project management tool for the linux machines you maintain, and you've heard of something called Maven. - What is the actual process by which you'd find out how to get this software (i.e. you'd search for it), and how you'd actually install it? - How would you normally detect if you're getting the original Maven software, versus some different software - either a different vendor's version, or perhaps a bogus version with adware in it, or perhaps some non-standard version that is apparently popular, but is *not* the default version used on your platform? * Separately: does anyone have links to any trademark/branding policy pages that common package managers have out there? I'm wondering what policy or best practices that are *clearly documented* is already
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.4.0-incubating
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Jacques Nadeau jacq...@apache.org wrote: Vote result: 8 binding +1 votes 1 non-binding +1 votes No -1 votes http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-calcite-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DPUH70eyPY3u25O4ayimwOXfBBxiX2txUEcNbUCYODXg%40mail.gmail.com%3E To remove the ambiguity: three IPMC members have voted +1: Ashutosh Chauhan, Julian Hyde, and Alan Gates. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
September 2015 Incubator report timeline
Greets, Podling reports are due next Wednesday, September 2nd. http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2015 Wed September 02 -- Podling reports due by end of day Sun September 06 -- Shepherd reviews due by end of day Sun September 06 -- Summary due by end of day Tue September 08 -- Mentor signoff due by end of day Wed September 09 -- Report submitted to Board Wed September 16 -- Board meeting I volunteer to be Report Manager for September. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
Dennis this is now triple posted including one private list. I request you no longer contact me directly as I thought I was replying privately to our prior conversation and would have moderated some of my language. BTW what I wrote has NOTHING to do with the Incubator. I am sure the IPMC has zero interest in re-incubating OpenOffice.org. Trademarks, legal-discuss tell me if the following idea is crazy. You can split the thread. Just say which you are replying on. I'll note that this should go to the AOO dev list soon with an appropriate formulation as a proposal. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice. Change this to misused in Linux distributions. How do we find a policy where can get Linux distributions near compliance. Since LO rebased and declared a new license we can impute how much of that is really AL 2 via a diff. If the LO code is a nominal percent Apache OO then we say it is sufficient to be based on Apache. If they move below that percent then they are no longer compliant. To stay compliant they can contribute upstream and help us have a source release that they can remain compliant against. Essentially we use the trademark as a honey trap to stay relevant. Purity will never happen. Anyone that has a distro that is sufficiently close can then get a powered by use of the mark. If we can't do a binary for a platform then we can point users to all of the powered by binaries. The SVN model. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [Not cross-posting to a private list.] Dave, I don't exactly understand what it is expected that trademarks@ would be doing or clarifying with regard to your specific Foo Manchu case. Please explain what you mean by a percentage. - Dennis PS: How do you see a case where the Manchu project makes nothing more than nominative mentions of Foo and Foo is not used at all in the naming of the Manchu product? Are specific instances of the use of Foo in a manner that would confuse Manchu with Foo what you have in mind for bringing to an Apache Foo PMC? PPS: I assume we are talking about something other than how third parties use and attribute ALv2 licensed code one way or another. I'm not certain how trademark enters there. There is related discussion on legal-discuss, however. -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35 To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: tradema...@apache.org; stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com Subject: Re: apache binary distributions Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: (Please note mixed private/public lists) On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: [ ... ] package-name: foo description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo. Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar. Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation. Foo = OpenOffice Manchu = LibreOffice This is the reality in Linuxland without the attribution. This has been going on for sometime. I think since prior to Oracle's grant. Rolling that back should be a goal for the PMC. Maybe we diff the codebases and accept a percentage. This standard might the encourage upstream contribution. I would like to formulate this idea for the AOO dev list. The above has really helped me crystallize what I've been kicking around in my mind for months and months. Thoughts before I take it there? I know I'm not following Shane's thoughts below. OpenOffice is uniquely problematic. Regards, Dave [ ... ] - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-calcite-1.4.0-incubating
Thanks for helping clarify Marvin. I didn't realize that Julian was an IPMC. I was only counting the two mentors that voted in our vote. On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Jacques Nadeau jacq...@apache.org wrote: Vote result: 8 binding +1 votes 1 non-binding +1 votes No -1 votes http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-calcite-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DPUH70eyPY3u25O4ayimwOXfBBxiX2txUEcNbUCYODXg%40mail.gmail.com%3E To remove the ambiguity: three IPMC members have voted +1: Ashutosh Chauhan, Julian Hyde, and Alan Gates. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
