On 1/22/08, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with the general point about the legality of using the > org.apache namespace. However, I think there is a significant issue > here. People assume that org.apache code is from Apache. And the > reasoning that its too much effort to rename is frankly wrong. Even > sed could do a decent job and probably sort the problem out.
But don't forget that you also need to sed and rebuild every piece of code referencing those packages directly, often not under your control, and you're breaking compatibility with code that assumes the old package names by means of import or hard-coded class names, losing a feature available in the original code base. If you fork Apache Foo you can no longer call it Apache Foo, but if you need to change package names, you can no longer use it where org.apache.foo is imported. So forcing package renaming allows forking the source code, but limits the field of use. Assaf I think the usage of org.apache should be considered in the same way > as the Apache Logo - something that the ASF controls rigorously to > protect our brand image. > > Paul > > On Jan 22, 2008 8:12 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2008 6:23 PM, 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 assume all > > > responsibility to verify that the license in the code is correct. > > > > > > What you can't do is to use the Apache brand for another project, > > > meaning to use the package names including apache if it's not an > > > Apache project. > > > > I thought the whole point of the AL was that pepople could take code > > away and do whatever they want with it - it doesn't say in the AL you > > can "do whatever you want with it as long as you rename the packages". > > > > Niall > > > > > And please be aware that the code might be tainted. Since it never > > > left incubation, the code's provenance might never have been vetted. > > > So you don't really know what you're getting, in terms of ownership, > > > license, patent, etc. If you use the code you're responsible for > > > making sure it's really ok. > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Hans Granqvist wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > I want to move a failed incubation project (TSIK) to Google Code, > > > > but the source is full of org.apache.* packages, so I'm not sure > > > > what the right way to do this is. (The code would keep the same > > > > ASF 2.0 license.) > > > > > > > > Changing the package names will break any and all code, so if > > > > it'd be great if that's avoidable. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > Paul Fremantle > Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2 > OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- CTO, Intalio http://www.intalio.com
