very much agreed and I guess if one can show a migration path (as I
have suggested) which doesn't break too much, then I think nobody
should mind renaming the packages.
But with the ASF member hat on I think the package org.apache.*
is something which the ASF should protect, just as the
I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this discussion, but it's a
good discussion and I also can't really think of a better forum!
So
On Jan 22, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
There are various commercial vendors doing this sort of thing. Most
are aimed at having doing
Janne Jalkanen schrieb:
very much agreed and I guess if one can show a migration path (as I
have suggested) which doesn't break too much, then I think nobody
should mind renaming the packages.
But with the ASF member hat on I think the package org.apache.* is
something which the ASF should
On Jan 23, 2008 11:26 AM, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Niall Pemberton schrieb:
On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Niall
Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
weight around.
Well you were talking about need
I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
org.apache.*package, they assume that it's from the ASF. Leaving it
in an
ASF-namespaced package has two problems here:
1. People will assume that it's ASF code.
James Carman wrote:
I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
org.apache.*package, they assume that it's from the ASF. Leaving it
in an
ASF-namespaced package has two problems here:
1. People will
I am performing the IP clearance paperwork for some code from Peter
Kriens. The IP clearance form here:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
Asks me to fill in the date for:
Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
updated to
On 1/23/08, Richard S. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Carman wrote:
I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
org.apache.*package, they assume that it's from the ASF. Leaving it
in an
The main point in this discussion is that not changing the package
names is not illegal, but it's definitely uncool and goes against a
pretty well adhered to convention.
+1
Legally, all we can do is ask them
to change the package names and if they don't, there's nothing we can
do (at least
James Carman wrote:
On 1/23/08, Richard S. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Carman wrote:
I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
package name in the code? When people see a class that's in an
org.apache.*package, they assume that it's from the ASF.
Now, if we, with 2.8, have to change to org.apache.*, we will
obviously break compatibility with any of the existing plugins.
Any advice or policies?
We ought to have this as an FAQ. Roller and Wicket, for example, had to
deal with it, amongst others.
--- Noel
On 1/23/08, Richard S. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Carman wrote:
It seems that there are two discussions going on at the same time:
1. Whether it is cool for people to do this.
2. Whether we should try to stop people from doing this.
I am pretty sure that we all agree that it
But I believe that the IP is
tainted (and constrained) for TSIK, which is why it failed in the first
place.
No, it failed really because there weren't enough people interested
and working on it. All the legal IP issues were cleared.
-Hans
It seems that there are two discussions going on at the same time:
1. Whether it is cool for people to do this.
2. Whether we should try to stop people from doing this.
I am pretty sure that we all agree that it is not cool (1), so I wasn't
talking about this.
Regarding (2), I think
Legally, all we can do is ask them to change the package names and if
they
don't, there's nothing we can do
I agree that's the legal situation.
No one here is authorized to provide legal advice on behalf of the Apache
Software Foundation. Please refer all legal discussion to [EMAIL
Hans Granqvist wrote:
I believe that the IP is tainted (and constrained) for TSIK, which is
why
it failed in the first place.
No, it failed really because there weren't enough people interested
and working on it. All the legal IP issues were cleared.
If that is the case, let's see if it
Just moving to its own thread:
Now, if we, with 2.8, have to change to org.apache.*, we will
obviously break compatibility with any of the existing plugins.
Any advice or policies?
We ought to have this as an FAQ. Roller and Wicket, for example, had to
deal with it, amongst others.
sorry for hijacking the thread.
On Jan 23, 2008 11:02 AM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Legally, all we can do is ask them to change the package names and if
they
don't, there's nothing we can do
so, does this mean:
-during incubation the packages should be renamed to
On Jan 23, 2008 2:39 PM, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-during incubation the packages should be renamed to org.apache.* but
not on the start?
My 2 cents: it's OK to do the rename any time before graduation.
-is org.apache.* an exit criteria ? I think yes
I agree.
Yoav
On 1/23/08, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that there are two discussions going on at the same time:
1. Whether it is cool for people to do this.
2. Whether we should try to stop people from doing this.
I am pretty sure that we all agree that it is not cool
Assaf Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/22/08, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the terminology in the subject is wrong.
You are not moving a failed incubation project. That project is dead.
What you can do is to use the code in another project, and assume all
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 11:02 AM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Legally, all we can do is ask them to change the package names and
if
they don't, there's nothing we can do
Please note: I did not make the above statement. You quoted me quoting
someone else.
When forking Apache licensed code, one does _not_ need to change the
package name, or anything else in the source code. One arguably
shouldn't then re-publish the binaries or source as Apache Foo [1], but
the code itself can use the same namespace.
there is no legal requirement to [rename
J Aaron Farr wrote:
If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
do so.
believing you that there is no legal requirement (I
24 matches
Mail list logo
