On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > On 02/29/2012 02:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, "Alex Karasulu"<akaras...@apache.org**> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein<gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>> They remain. >>>> >>>> Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is >>>> >>> our >> >>> determination, and is our Right. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry but I don't think that's right. >>> >> >> Please explain what information you have that states we cannot use >> org.tigris.subversion for our deprecated APIs. I'm very curious because I >> wasn't aware of any prohibition on this. You seem to know something the >> Subversion community does not. Explain, please. >> >> (and yes, I know exactly who owns org.tigris.subversion; I'd like to see >> if >> you do) >> >> Sqoop has determined backwards compatibility is important to their >>>> community and wants to keep this (deprecated) interface for a while. So >>>> where is the problem here, people? >>>> >>>> >>>> It's fine but those com.cloudera packages don't need to be hosted here. >>> >> >> The community says it is best for their product to bundle the deprecated >> APIs. Do you have some information from the community that says otherwise? >> >> They can be hosted elsewhere and the backwards compatibility issue can >>> still be handled. >>> >> >> They can, but the community feels it best for their users to bundle it as >> part of the product. Do you know something about the users that leads you >> to believe they would prefer to get the deprecated interfaces from >> somewhere else? As a separate download? An extra step? >> >> What do you know that the Sqoop devs do not? >> >> Really. What is the problem with the extra interfaces? >>>> >>>> >>>> The package namespace is not ours. It's that simple G. >>> >> >> Are we allowed to use it? Is the namespace designed/defined for us to use >> it? Is somebody attempting to recover the deprecated namespace? Do the >> owners *want* us to continue using it? >> >> Those are the questions. >> >> I know Subversion is allowed to use org.tigris for its deprecated APIs. >> Who >> are you to say otherwise? Why do you assume you know better? How is it you >> know what package name I can or cannot use? >> >> There is no legal (trademark or copyright) problem that I'm aware of. >>>> >>> There >> >>> is no technical problem that I'm aware of. >>>> >>> >>> >>> OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under >>> com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)? >>> >> >> I bet they would get pissed if we created arbitrary packages in their >> namespace, but that is NOT the question at hand. >> > > To me this actually *is* the question at hand, but from a different > perspective than you bring up. > In my initial response on this I raised this as a question about > affiliation and independence of the project towards the community. > > For all I know Cloudera might not get pissed off at all if arbitrary > packages in their namespace are created. There are plenty Cloudera > committers on Sqoop which could (legally be allowed to) do this themselves. > > So to me this is not a legal problem but one of community, diversity and > independence of affiliation. > > How will the community perceive the project independence from Cloudera if > it carries, and maintains a 3rd party namespace, to which several > committers are commercially affiliated as employee. > > That IMO should be an concern for the Foundation, not solely a 'Right' of > a PMC to decide on themselves. > > I completely agree with this position as well. It escaped my focus as I was more worried about the issue of namespace collisions.
-- Best Regards, -- Alex
