On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:54 PM me <m...@emangini.com> wrote: > > > > > Subject: Re: A way to keep the name > > I think it's a good idea to make such a fund or simply make sure that > existing efforts (TAC, Outreachy engagement) have some deliberate and > conscious actions in this direction - knowing the past association - and > showing the respect and following the original mindset of people who > created the foundation. > I want to re-iterate that we have to proceed with caution here. We’re making > assumptions based on western culture and values. The way funds are made > available has to be approached carefully. A scholarship or social award might > be more diplomatic? I can’t speak for the Apache, but I can re-iterate that > trying this w/ some nations is going to be received as offensive. > > > > Just one comment here - I stated my opinion in the member's discussions - > that's my personal view of course, that there is nothing to repair as there > is no damage and simply de-association of Apache name while also showing > the respect and engage community to actively work on de-associating is a > better way of handling the issue than any repair. > How do we know that there is no damage or repair until we speak with them? > > > > Using the word "reparation" here is certainly not the one I'd use. It might > be good will and sign of respect, but in no-way it should bring any > obligation on the ASF. > > If I see "Association with permission" is extremely dangerous for the > foundation that worked 20 years on the brand being it's most valuable asset > (without the real piggy-backing on the Apache Tribe in order to build the > reputation). Just having "permission" from others on the important asset of > the ASF foundation brand depending on non-member decisions might also be > illegal from the foundation bylaws (I am not a lawyer and certainly do not > know much about US law). This would basically mean that we put the fate of > the foundation in the hands of non-members. > > > I don’t mean to nudge here, but I’m going to. > > I want to be very open that I don’t necessarily agree with the “change the > name at all costs approach”. Maybe I’m naive, but I find a romantic element > to having organizations that can share a name with a group of people that > represents the characteristics of those people, while maintaining a > consistent responsibility to represent them cooperatively. > > That said, I also recognize we live in a polarizing social climate, so I feel > it is a responsible direction to hear the tribe and hear what they have to > say to determine if a problem exists. My only caution with the approach is > that it is temporary. We could find out it doesn’t bother anyone today, only > to have it revisited in X amount of time to find that it is no longer > acceptable. I don’t personally understand the problem well enough to know > what the degree or stability of those relationships and perceptions are. > > I understand the apprehension to the word “permission’. If I can put this in > radical terms, how would you feel if I started a software foundation called > the Jarek Potiuk foundation? > Then I would create a name page similar to > https://www.apache.org/apache-name/ Most of the verbiage would be > respectful, and would pay homage to an inspiring colleague “Jarek Potiuk" > > Then in some fashion like this -> As the Apache HTTP Server grew from patches > applied to the NCSA Server, a pun on the name quickly spread amongst members > of the community, with the rumor being that “Apache” actually stood for “a > ‘patchy’ server”. As time passed, the popularity of the “A Patchy Server” > story grew: rumor became lore, and lore became legend. > > I would write… "as an open source project, each of us brought our own spice > to the software, very much like a ‘potluck’ dish. Given the similarities in > the name we called it internally a “Potluck Foundation”…etc. > > Maybe you are ok with it. Maybe not. Maybe your family and descendants aren’t > ok with it later. Either way, that is your name, and you have every right in > this country (US) to tell us not to use it. If we don’t comply, and you sue > us, we can lose the right to use the name as well as be penalized > financially. (Apologies if this offends. I’m trying to demonstrate a > parallel.) > > There is a causal relationship between the foundation’s name and the Apache > people based on the link provided above. > > What I’m going to suggest as the following is an extreme case. However, it > can’t be ignored. There is legal precedent for companies being sued in the > United States over the use of tribal names. (One that immediately comes to > mind is the Allergan case. They paid an annual $15 million dollar royalty to > a Mohawk nation while the patents remained valid, as well as handed over > those patents to the tribe. I believe Apple and Google have also both been > sued in similar cases.) > > As an open source body with no revenue, the common alternative is a cease and > desist suit.
The risk level of this was assessed in the past. With my VP Legal hat on we can do a reassessment now to understand what it is. This is NOT to distract from the argument that is going on on this list right now. Thanks, Roman. > I’m not a lawyer either, but I have had to be involved in the process of > recording patents and study of infringement cases (simply as part of being a > chief technologist/architect). What would be the impact of a cease and desist > suit against the Apache trademark? How would this impact the Apache License? > I believe the projects under the license numbers in the tens of thousands. > > Email is terrible for tone, so let me call out that I’m not suggesting this > with a “sky is falling, doom and gloom” angle. I’m trying to bring forth that > this risk exists one way or another as long as we continue to use the > “Apache” name and brand. > > It may be worth the effort to perform due diligence in this regard. > > > > So while it would be great to show outgoing engagement from the members to > reach out with some efforts, this should not be seen as "reparation" or > "obligation". I think it is a very asymmetrical approach to think in those > terms. > > It's one thing to react to concerns of people who feel one way and very > different to be "responsible for damage" (which reparation is basically > about). > I think that this makes sense logically. Unfortunately, neither laws nor > social normative always follow mathematical precision :( > > > > J. > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:20 AM Walter Cameron < > walter.li...@waltercameron.com> wrote: > > > > members of the Apache Nation (defined by the eight tribes) > > > > Choosing to use federal recognition as the litmus test for eligibility will > > exclude many impacted by ASF’s appropriation of the term. > > > > There are also state recognized tribes such as the Choctaw-Apache Community > > of Ebarb who don’t yet have federal recognition. It’s also important to > > keep in mind that many Native people live in Native communities and are > > affected by such labels and stereotyping but for whatever reasons might not > > be officially enrolled in their tribe. > > > > Any sort of criteria for determining eligibility for reparations should be > > as broad as possible. > > > > I would also like to echo Ed’s warnings of the risks of time here. As we > > are not Apache people ourselves, we are just a bunch of people that signed > > up for a mailing list, we are not as attuned to the use of the term and how > > people respond to it. > > > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:39 AM me <m...@emangini.com> wrote: > > > > > This was somewhat covered (at a much higher level). This falls into the > > > category of ‘association with permission’. It’s somewhere between > > > disassociation and what Jeep is doing (which is to determine if a problem > > > exists w/ the specific tribe.) > > > > > > Each circumstance is unique. I looked through Jeep’s materials, and they > > > have no documentation that links them directly to the Cherokee nation. We > > > do. With such an explicit relationship, perception (of that relationship) > > > is fairly black and white. On the flip side, it does give us more > > > steps/milestones if we do define a problem. > > > > > > I think what is challenging to communicate is the difference between the > > > Washington/Cleveland sports team cases, and Jeep/ASF. > > > > > > Washington/Cleveland is cut and dry, because their mascots were a > > > disparaging term. (i.e. like Esk*mo is to the Inuit). > > > > > > ASF/Jeep are using a tribe name, which w/o context has no connotation > > > other than an identifier. However, the usage and context of the name is > > > where perception comes in. Once we start doing things under the umbrella > > of > > > the name, there is an association or linkage. If the tribal nations are > > > against what we “do”, based on values of some tribes (at least the ones I > > > share DNA with), trying to “buy” the name may be considered extremely > > > offensive. > > > > > > It’s also worth considering that it is an ongoing risk. What is ok today > > > might not be tomorrow. It’s entirely possible that we take a direction > > that > > > no longer aligns with what the nations consider acceptable values. > > > > > > I would love to see some form of positive relationship fostered that > > > allows an organization to create a respectful relationship (maybe us!). I > > > personally find that to be a more interesting direction than we appear to > > > be headed globally. (I suppose this is incredibly ironic when you > > consider > > > that I’m proposing social unification which is often considered to be the > > > reciprocal of tribalism) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> > > > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org> > > > Date: May 4, 2022 at 14:05:48 > > > To: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org> > > > Subject: A way to keep the name > > > > > > Hi, all. > > > > > > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our > > > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the > > > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward? > > > > > > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache > > > Nation > > > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing > > > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs? > > > Such > > > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more > > > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in > > > England to describe a nominal rent. > > > > > > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands > > > made available to members of the Apache Nation: > > > > > > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon > > > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code > > > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure > > > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces > > > > > > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package: > > > > > > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development > > > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors > > > > > > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just > > > tossed > > > into the ring. Please suggest them. > > > > > > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative, > > > as > > > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people > > > of > > > the Apache Nation. > > > > > > a > > > -- > > > Andrew Wetmore > > > > > > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/> > > > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
