Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Dec 29, 2011 7:16 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hey Mike,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I get the analogy. More comments below.
>
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> > [...snip...]
> > You, as an ASF member and PMC chair are equivalent to the employee in
> > this scenario. Even though you are an ASF member or PMC chair, you
> > do not have the right to use the company assets without permission.
>
> Yeah that's why I'm asking for permission. The only asset I want to use
> is the org.apache namespace for my "Apache Extras" project. I think
> Extras should allow me (and others in my situation) to do that.
A decided otherwise when setting up extras. I don't see why
>
> > In this case, the real permission you are seeking is the right to
> > release an Apache product that contains LGPL-licensed code.
>
> Nope, because Apache Extras software are not "Apache products".
> They are "Apache Extras" products. And Apache Extras allows
> LGPL licensed code.
But org.apache uses one of our marks, using it for none Apache software in
this way will cause confusion. Therefore extras does not allow the use of
our marks. The license issue without the marks consideration is a red
herring.
> > The
> > Apache Extras site isn't going to provide you a loophole to do this.
>
> It's not a loophole. It's an advertised feature (bullet 2) of the site:
>
> {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}
Nothing in that quote says "using Apache marks", furthermore later sections
prohibit the use of or marks. Therefore it would be a loophole if those
clauses were not there. The clauses in our terms need to be read in their
entirety not individually.
Personally I don't think we should make the changes you suggest. I do
understand the logic of your argument, however, those clauses were included
to prevent confusion and minimise work. If we made exceptions for PMCs then
ComDev would need to start actively policing use of extras. We explicitly
chose not to do that as we don't have sufficient volunteer energy.
Furthermore, those clauses were included at the request of VP trademarks
who was also concerned about confusion and oversight. Even if we were to
support your change request we would have to get approval from trademarks,
which I don't believe would be forthcoming.
Nothing in our terms prevent you using extras, they just prevent you doing
so using a namespace that belongs to Apache. I'm sorry this means extra
work for you, but no project outside Apache should be using that namespace,
private our public. The same conditions would hold wherever you hosted your
code (if it were spotted).
Ross
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
On Dec 29, 2011 7:16 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hey Mike,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I get the analogy. More comments below.
>
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> > [...snip...]
> > You, as an ASF member and PMC chair are equivalent to the employee in
> > this scenario. Even though you are an ASF member or PMC chair, you
> > do not have the right to use the company assets without permission.
>
> Yeah that's why I'm asking for permission. The only asset I want to use
> is the org.apache namespace for my "Apache Extras" project. I think
> Extras should allow me (and others in my situation) to do that.
>
> > In this case, the real permission you are seeking is the right to
> > release an Apache product that contains LGPL-licensed code.
>
> Nope, because Apache Extras software are not "Apache products".
> They are "Apache Extras" products. And Apache Extras allows
> LGPL licensed code.
>
> > The
> > Apache Extras site isn't going to provide you a loophole to do this.
>
> It's not a loophole. It's an advertised feature (bullet 2) of the site:
>
> {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}
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
