Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Dec 31, 2011 3:07 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Nick Burch <n...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> > >> Second, I wonder about the proposed governance and logic of this whole > >> 'java package id rules' business. Here's a scenario: someone from > >> outside Apache fills out the form, creates a project, and *forks some > >> Apache project into it.* Bingo, 'org.apache.*'. What group of > >> volunteers is signed up to notice and police this? > > > > > > Isn't that covered by clauses 4.2-4.4 and 6 of the license? I thought that > > if you forked an Apache licensed project, then you need to flag up the > > changes (4.2) and attribute where it came from (4.3/4.4), plus you're > > restricted in what you can call the fork (6). > > > 4.2? http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt has 4 (a) - 4(d). > They concern redistribution. It's entirely unclear to me whether > forking the source constitutes redistribution. Even if it does, that > wouldn't change the question at hand. (6) is the trademark question, > which remains: is using an org.apache Java package name a usage of a > trademark, and if we took that attitude, where would we find 1000 > monkeys on typewriters to create all the email complaining of > infringement?
As you say it's a trademark issue, nor a ComDev issue. We don't allow usage if the namespace because trademarks@ asked us not to. it's not or concern how those guidelines are enforced outside of extras. Inside of extras we only undertake to address any issues that are brought to our attention. Ross
