On 16.08.2015 21:33, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >>> The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it >>> that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo >> produce a >>> release of Bar, Baz and Pigdog is pretty far off the reservation, >> however. >> >> It is. But if they screw up packaging guidelines inadvertently and the >> downstream >> want to take matters in their own hands -- how is it "off the reservation"? >> > The downstream shouldn't be calling their artifacts Hadoop if they aren't > the Hadoop PMC in any case.
So wait ... If the Subversion PMC releases source, and, say, Debian creates a binary package called 'subversion-x.y.z' ... you're saying that's trademark infringement and we should be telling all the people who produce binary packages to stop using our registered trademark? Really? Producing binaries is different from creating a derived work. Even if packagers change the sources (which they often do, in minor ways, to tune the build to their platform), it's less than sane to tell them they should rename the packages because of that. It would be different if their changes resulted in changed functionality, but that's not what's happening. -- Brane --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
