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 a
> 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 [re
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
som
"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
Hi all,
We've just posted the Apache Incubator proposal for Thrift onto the
Wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ThriftProposal
For those who prefer reading Wiki markup directly, it is copied below.
Cheers,
Mark
= Thrift Proposal =
== Abstract ==
Thrift is a framework for efficient cross
Some of the NOTICE files start with the text:
${pom.name}
e.g.
tools/wsdl2java
and
modules/policy
This does not seem right.
The top-level NOTICE and LICENSE files in demos/mortgage-loanapproval
are the standard ASF ones - however NOTICE and LICENSE.txt in the
demos/mortgage-loanapproval/src/ma
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 i
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
-
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 o
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
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
Paul Fremantle 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 (1), so I wasn't
talking about this.
> > 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 PR
> 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),
> 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
---
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
> 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
-
> I don't know anything about the legal side, but it would seem to me to
> be quite unacceptable to publish new releases with org.apache.*
> namespace. That namespace belongs to the ASF, and users will expect that
> anything published under that namespace has the approval of the ASF.
Correct, IMO.
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.
Hi,
The Tuscany project had a vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to publish the
Tuscany SCA Java 1.1-incubating release. The vote thread on tuscany-dev has
7 +1s and an archive can be found at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg27321.html
The release includes new function and bug
On 1/23/08, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
> 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 l
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
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 ref
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 assum
Another point you might want to consider is what perception folks will have
of your code if they want to use it. I can't speak for everyone
(obviously), but I know that if I wanted to use a piece of software and I
was downloading it from Sourceforge or something and it had the
org.apache.*package
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.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
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.
David E Jones wrote:
As you mentioned, yes, there *are* various commercial vendors doing
this, but no open source has this capability.
I'd be interested to hear more of what you had in mind for "this
capability".
The ability to customize anything and everything in the application
at a higher
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 y
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 to change the package name" and
> "rigorous protecti
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 to change the package name" and
"rigorous protection" rather than some kind of "hey we'd prefer
it.
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
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 l
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 in
35 matches
Mail list logo
