Re: Apache Extras Question
Mike has it right, it's a trademark thing. But please kill this thread here, it goes to ask or commmitters and for most this will be considered noise. Correct list for further discussion is d...@community.apache.org Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Dec 29, 2011 4:17 PM, "Mike Kienenberger" wrote: > I am not an official Apache member, but here's my take on it. > > The Extras project area is for projects related to Apache, but not in > any way managed by the Apache Software Foundation. Because of that, > it may not use the Apache brand-name, trademarks, nor the "org.apache" > namespace. > > Consider Apache Extras to be more of an unofficial fan site of Apache. > > If someone (in this case, you) wants to create something that directly > interacts or is related to Apache OODT, this non-related site gives > you a place to put it where other Apache OODT users are more likely to > find it. But how the project is managed is up to you, and the > ownership of the project and its assets remains with you. > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) > wrote: > > Hey Guys, > > > > I was reading [1] and I noticed item 3.1 and 3.2 stating that projects > at Extras shouldn't > > use the org.apache namespace (e.g., if Java), and they shouldn't use the > apache project > > name in their extras name. I find this kind of odd. > > > > Here's my concrete situation. Over in Apache OODT ville, I've got 2 > plugins for our PushPull > > system that pulls down remote file content from sites and downloads > them. The 2 plugins > > are Java plugins that integrate libraries that are LGPL licensed. I > can't include these plugins > > in Apache OODT as part of PushPull even though we use the plugins > extensively on > > projects where we deploy OODT and they are better FTP plugins than > existing friendly (to ALv2) > > licensed projects. So, given the choice of simply keeping the code > housed in our internal > > JPL SVN and being unable to more broadly share it, I decided to throw up > a project on > > Extras called oodt-pushpull-plugins, and throw the code up there. I > however did this before > > reading [1] and am now worried I'm in violation of 3.1 and 3.2 because I > used org.apache.oodt.cas.pushpull > > as the namespace for my java package and I used oodt all over my code > (which I licensed > > under ALv2 FWIW, here [2]). FWIW also, the only folks I would expect to > work on > > [2] would be OODT PMC members, myself so far, and Brian Foster who are > folks > > who work on PushPull. > > > > So I'm wondering what's up with 3.1 and 3.2. Isn't the use of similar > project names precisely > > what we want at Extras? And what's the harm in allowing projects to use > org.apache.oodt > > in their namespace over there? That won't confuse people IMHO, because > I'm not to > > publish to Maven Central (and wouldn't want to -- I'd want folks to > download this library > > independently and mvn install it locally, and instructed folks to do so > on [3]) and because > > we will make it clear with documentation on our Wiki (that I was just > about to write but > > will hold off on until I hear the result of this thread) that the code > at oodt-pushpull-plugins > > on Apache Extras is *not* Apache OODT. > > > > Comments back would be appreciated. Ross told me that ComDev is charged > with > > Apache Extras so that's why I'm asking here. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > [1] http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html > > [2] http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/oodt-pushpull-plugins/ > > [3] http://s.apache.org/8FB > > > > > > ++ > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > Senior Computer Scientist > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > ++ > > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > > ++ > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org > >
Re: Apache Extras Question
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Dec 29, 2011 6:33 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > (cc'ing dev@community and setting reply-to: header so that replies > go there) > > Hi Mike, > > First off, thanks for replying. Comments inline below: > > On Dec 29, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote: > > > I am not an official Apache member, but here's my take on it. > > > > The Extras project area is for projects related to Apache, but not in > > any way managed by the Apache Software Foundation. Because of that, > > it may not use the Apache brand-name, trademarks, nor the "org.apache" > > namespace. > > It's my understanding that anyone can start up a project at Apache Extras, > in which case, if that person doesn't have an availid here at the ASF, and > doesn't have an ICLA on file, then that's another situation that I won't > speculate on. What I'm much more interested in is in the situation I presented > within this thread. I have an availid. I am an ASF member. I was looking > at Apache Extras as a place to share some Apache OODT plugins that > leverage code that is LGPL licensed, that I couldn't otherwise share within > the normal Apache OODT SVN home. Prior to me coming to Apache Extras, > this has been code housed in an internal JPL SVN repository for years, even > before we brought the software to Apache. I'd like to use Apache Extras to > facilitate sharing with an even broader community and to share the plugins > we've developed (which themselves are ALv2 licensed) with others. The ASF does not release code under any license other than the Apache license, using Apache marks and namespaces will only serve to confuse users. Furthermore, if we relaxed this rule them who would police it? Ross
Re: Apache Extras Question
(cc'ing dev@community and setting reply-to: header so that replies
go there)
Hi Mike,
First off, thanks for replying. Comments inline below:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> I am not an official Apache member, but here's my take on it.
>
> The Extras project area is for projects related to Apache, but not in
> any way managed by the Apache Software Foundation. Because of that,
> it may not use the Apache brand-name, trademarks, nor the "org.apache"
> namespace.
It's my understanding that anyone can start up a project at Apache Extras,
in which case, if that person doesn't have an availid here at the ASF, and
doesn't have an ICLA on file, then that's another situation that I won't
speculate on. What I'm much more interested in is in the situation I presented
within this thread. I have an availid. I am an ASF member. I was looking
at Apache Extras as a place to share some Apache OODT plugins that
leverage code that is LGPL licensed, that I couldn't otherwise share within
the normal Apache OODT SVN home. Prior to me coming to Apache Extras,
this has been code housed in an internal JPL SVN repository for years, even
before we brought the software to Apache. I'd like to use Apache Extras to
facilitate sharing with an even broader community and to share the plugins
we've developed (which themselves are ALv2 licensed) with others.
>
> Consider Apache Extras to be more of an unofficial fan site of Apache.
>
> If someone (in this case, you) wants to create something that directly
> interacts or is related to Apache OODT, this non-related site gives
> you a place to put it where other Apache OODT users are more likely to
> find it.
Yep that's what I thought to, which is why I cam here. However, 3.1 and 3.2
are in direct conflict with the mannerism in which I'd like to share the code.
I *want* to use the org.apache.oodt Java package namespace. I'm a PMC member
for
OODT. The project at Extras is admin'ed by me and open to any OODT PMC
members. I think we should be able to indicate our relationship to Apache
OODT via use of the namespace and via calling my project oodt-pushpull-plugins.
> But how the project is managed is up to you, and the
> ownership of the project and its assets remains with you.
That's not how I read 3.1 and 3.2. Because if what you're saying is true, then
we wouldn't have 3.1 and 3.2 because I would abide by them per my comments
above.
I guess to boil it down: as an ASF member, and a PMC chair for Apache OODT,
Apache Extras (with 3.1 and 3.2) isn't serving our needs as a community. I'd
like
to fix that. Here's 2 concrete suggestions:
1. remove 3.1 and 3.2 -- I don't think in reality they are needed and I think
they serve
to discourage folks from actually being an "Apache Extra" project -- a closely
related
to an Apache project set of code that because of e.g., licensing restrictions,
etc.,
couldn't normally be housed at Apache. The Apache Extras use cases I distill
from
FAQ section 5 here [1]:
{quote}
We recommend starting a project here if one or more of the following is true:
• the project is experimental and the committers are not sure of the
future direction.
• the project has a license or depends on a license that is not
compatible with the Apache License 2.0
• the project is targeted at a small niche and might not benefit from
the wider exposure of being an Apache Software project.
{quote}
are precisely the reason that I thought that Apache Extras was the right place
to bring
my code. What I'm proposing IMHO falls into the 2nd bullet.
2. loosen the language in 3.1 and 3.2 -- for example, an exception mechanism in
which
if an Apache Extras project is operated by an ASF member, and the PMC/committee
doesn't
have an issue with using the org.apache.* namespace/similar plugin name
(because
in the end it benefits their community), then allow them to obviate 3.1 and
3.2. I'd be happy
to write up the patch to the FAQ/guidelines if there is lazy consensus with
this option. I'd
also be happy to hold a formal VOTE on the Apache OODT lists should this option
be
OK'ed by community@.
Cheers,
Chris
[1] http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: Apache Extras Question
Hey Bertrand, Oh, OK. I've subscribed to d...@community.apache.org and will be redirecting my email there then. Cheers, Chris On Dec 29, 2011, at 12:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) > wrote: >> ...Ross told me that ComDev is charged with >> Apache Extras so that's why I'm asking here > > I guess that would be d...@community.apache.org then. > > -Bertrand > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org > ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: Apache Extras Question
I am not an official Apache member, but here's my take on it. The Extras project area is for projects related to Apache, but not in any way managed by the Apache Software Foundation. Because of that, it may not use the Apache brand-name, trademarks, nor the "org.apache" namespace. Consider Apache Extras to be more of an unofficial fan site of Apache. If someone (in this case, you) wants to create something that directly interacts or is related to Apache OODT, this non-related site gives you a place to put it where other Apache OODT users are more likely to find it. But how the project is managed is up to you, and the ownership of the project and its assets remains with you. On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Hey Guys, > > I was reading [1] and I noticed item 3.1 and 3.2 stating that projects at > Extras shouldn't > use the org.apache namespace (e.g., if Java), and they shouldn't use the > apache project > name in their extras name. I find this kind of odd. > > Here's my concrete situation. Over in Apache OODT ville, I've got 2 plugins > for our PushPull > system that pulls down remote file content from sites and downloads them. The > 2 plugins > are Java plugins that integrate libraries that are LGPL licensed. I can't > include these plugins > in Apache OODT as part of PushPull even though we use the plugins extensively > on > projects where we deploy OODT and they are better FTP plugins than existing > friendly (to ALv2) > licensed projects. So, given the choice of simply keeping the code housed in > our internal > JPL SVN and being unable to more broadly share it, I decided to throw up a > project on > Extras called oodt-pushpull-plugins, and throw the code up there. I however > did this before > reading [1] and am now worried I'm in violation of 3.1 and 3.2 because I used > org.apache.oodt.cas.pushpull > as the namespace for my java package and I used oodt all over my code (which > I licensed > under ALv2 FWIW, here [2]). FWIW also, the only folks I would expect to work > on > [2] would be OODT PMC members, myself so far, and Brian Foster who are folks > who work on PushPull. > > So I'm wondering what's up with 3.1 and 3.2. Isn't the use of similar project > names precisely > what we want at Extras? And what's the harm in allowing projects to use > org.apache.oodt > in their namespace over there? That won't confuse people IMHO, because I'm > not to > publish to Maven Central (and wouldn't want to -- I'd want folks to download > this library > independently and mvn install it locally, and instructed folks to do so on > [3]) and because > we will make it clear with documentation on our Wiki (that I was just about > to write but > will hold off on until I hear the result of this thread) that the code at > oodt-pushpull-plugins > on Apache Extras is *not* Apache OODT. > > Comments back would be appreciated. Ross told me that ComDev is charged with > Apache Extras so that's why I'm asking here. > > Cheers, > Chris > > [1] http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html > [2] http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/oodt-pushpull-plugins/ > [3] http://s.apache.org/8FB > > > ++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++ > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: Apache Extras Question
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > ...Ross told me that ComDev is charged with > Apache Extras so that's why I'm asking here I guess that would be d...@community.apache.org then. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
