incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Sat, 15 Aug 2015 01:02:03 GMT
On 8/6/15 4:29 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 06.08.2015 08:22, schrieb Niclas Hedhman:
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <>
>> wrote:
>>> I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact
>>> can
>> NOT
>>> be confused with the one coming from Apache project.
>> I think the "problem" lies in Trademarks. Debian's Tomcat7 is labeled
>> "Servlet and JSP engine" and its Tomcat8 is labeled "Apache Tomcat 8 -
>> Servlet and JSP engine", yet I don't see Apache Tomcat project
>> creating/maintaining a Debian dist.
>> Now, is Debian allowed to call it "Tomcat"? Is it allowed to call Tomcat8
>> to BE "Apache Tomcat8", when in fact(!) there are changes to the source,
>> such as the start script in Debian Tomcat is not original of Apache
>> Tomcat,
>> but instead follows a Debian template for how those scripts should be
>> written. I am not sure what all the changes are, feel free to check;
>> IF (like Mozilla) Apache decides to strike down on Debian and not
>> allowing
>> it to use the same names, _I_ think it is a disservice to the users
>> (IceWeasel browser), but as it stands, Apache trademark licensing
>> seems to
>> not really be followed (Perhaps Debian has some permission that was
>> granted
>> long in the past... I may have missed that).
> I think there is nothing in the apache license 2 forbidding the usage of
> the project name or even apache (version 1.1 and 1 have been different
> and did indeed require a permission). The trademark weapon is more one
> of last resort. For example to go against false releases with malicious
> code added and the distributor not willing to take it of the web.

Have folks here read the license recently?

"6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."

So our license explicitly excludes any Apache trademarks (i.e. APACHE
and the names of all of our projects, among other things) from any of
the other grants the license makes.  Beyond that, trademark law (which
varies in different countries) applies when anyone is using one of our
trademarks in association with a software product or other related
product or service that they provide *publicly*.

Employees in a $BigCo could call an internal release "Best Apache Foo",
and we likely couldn't legally do anything about it (although we'd
certainly not be happy about it, and if we found out should ask them to
change it).  But when some other company or individual releases
"Something Apache Foo" publicly that we can - and should! - complain and
ensure that they're following our published trademark policy:

Having specific examples to discuss is a much better idea.  It's very
important both 1) what, specifically, the thing is that's being provided
(download, maven repo, whatever), 2) what an end user would perceive the
branding of that thing to be, and 3) who - what specific person or
organization - is providing that thing.

- Shane

> At least I hope no-one has some crazy idea as that ;)
> bye blackdrag

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message