On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> >> wrote: >> >>> > The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it >>> > that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo >>> produce a >>> > release of Bar, Baz and Pigdog is pretty far off the reservation, >>> however. >>> >>> It is. But if they screw up packaging guidelines inadvertently and the >>> downstream >>> want to take matters in their own hands -- how is it "off the reservation"? >>> >> >> The downstream shouldn't be calling their artifacts Hadoop if they aren't >> the Hadoop PMC in any case. > > But they do. And not just hadoop -- go do searches on pkgs.org and see > for yourself. > > Now that takeaway from this thread for me so far is this: in order for the > trademark enforcement to be invoked there has to be a legitimate concern > from the PMC. The foundation is not in a business of blatant brand policing > (otherwise quite a few C&D should've been sent already to various Linux > distros). >
It is the PMC's reponsibility to police their brand. [1] Some projects police it very loosely, others much more rigidly. If a project were to wish to go the Mozilla route, I am sure they could. The foundation provides projects with nice, generic scaffolding that gives some flexibility, but generally just works. The foundation itself rarely engages in trademark policing without the PMC requesting help. [1] http://apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility#responsible --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
