I was indeed talking of publishing the original material, released properly from Apache but with some minor changes to fit into the "Steve&Nick Platform" (whatever that might be). I think that is analogous...
So, if we agree that is all the same... minor alterations of official releases.... That said, I think/suspect that if "Cloudera Hadoop" or "Hortonworks Hadopo" is published in this manner (official releases with minor changes to fit their bigger picture), there might be quite a lot of noise... Just asking... I have no strong opinion in either way, other than I would like to see consistency. Cheers Niclas On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> > wrote: > > > Well, if "Debian" can publish their built Apache Maven as "maven" and > > "Steve&Nick" can't publish their built Apache Maven as "maven", then the > > inescapable question is; On what non-arbitrary grounds is one acceptable > > and the other is not? It can't be "we like Debian, but not Steve&Nick", > > that is morally weak. > > We need to distinguish between two situations: > > * Redistributor starts from official Apache release. > * Redistributor starts from unreleased code. > > "Debian" consumes official Apache releases, and they make changes that are > often very small. Whether we should be aggressive in enforcing our > trademarks > under those circumstances is a judgment call. Should "Steve&Nick" also > start > from an official release and make changes of similar scope to those made by > "Debian", I would agree that the case for enforcing our trademarks would be > roughly analogous. > > However, if "Steve&Nick" are Apache project contributors publishing > unreleased > code and making an end run around Apache release policy, there's greater > cause > for concern. > > * Are other PMC members being denied their right to participate in > release > decision making? > * To what extent does the privileged position afforded "Steve&Nick" > undermine project independence? > * While our communities strive to maintain codebases in compliance with > Apache legal and release policies, we accept that raw repository code > may > be imperfect between releases. Just how far out of compliance is the > unreleased code "Steve&Nick" are publishing under our trademark? > * To what extent is the 501(c)(3) status of the Foundation put at > increased risk by the actions of this project? What if the practices > spread to other projects? > > If "Debian" were to systematically consume unreleased code from us (aside > from > patches they've contributed themselves), I imagine we would have similar > concerns. But that seems like a weird theoretical. > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
