On 8/16/15 9:05 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> 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. >> >> But they do. And not just hadoop -- go do searches on pkgs.org and see >> for yourself. >> >> Now that takeaway from this thread for me so far is this: in order for the >> trademark enforcement to be invoked there has to be a legitimate concern >> from the PMC. The foundation is not in a business of blatant brand policing >> (otherwise quite a few C&D should've been sent already to various Linux >> distros). >> > > It is the PMC's reponsibility to police their brand. [1] Some projects > police it very loosely, others much more rigidly. If a project were to > wish to go the Mozilla route, I am sure they could. The foundation > provides projects with nice, generic scaffolding that gives some > flexibility, but generally just works. The foundation itself rarely > engages in trademark policing without the PMC requesting help.
That being said, let's be clear since we're on a publicly archived list here: The ASF owns all Apache trademarks on behalf of our projects. We certainly hope - and often only have the volunteer energy for - having the PMCs take the lead in reporting and attempting to police misuse of their project's marks. But if a PMC is truly falling down on the job - or if a PMC is unfairly allowing one/some companies to take advantage of their project brand - the ASF can and will enforce our polices at the Foundation level. This really is a rare case, but we do need to be clear from the policy side. I'm not particularly concerned about less-active projects that might just let things slide (or not be aware of) or slide into obscurity. I am concerned that some PMCs might not take policing seriously enough when it comes to vendors specifically pushing the boundaries in ways that harm our Apache wide reputation for project independence: https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html - Shane > > > [1] http://apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility#responsible > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
