incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:39:22 GMT
We could define a hierarchy of right to use the mark: pmc has ultimate
right, if the pmc are not producing a packaging for that system then the
developers of the packaging system have the right to define who can use the
mark in relation to their packaging system only.

The aim here would be to make our software available easily in different
packaging systems. The pmc may want to take ownership of popular packaging
systems, so we'd need to be able to trump others
On Wed 19 Aug 2015 at 10:27, Stephen Connolly <> wrote:

> I might add also that our integration tests should pass for patched
> releases (if you want to call the package "maven")
> Let's take this straw man out for a walk:
> Microsoft produce a maven.msi and it is available for download on a page
> called "how to get maven" on the Microsoft website. The installer's first
> screen says clearly that this is "microsoft's build of Apache maven" and
> our marks are ack on the first screen.
> Is that ok?
> On Wed 19 Aug 2015 at 10:03, Stephen Connolly <
>> wrote:
>> Perhaps, the maven pmc could decree: if you are making a convenience
>> installer of maven for an OS where the maven pmc does not create a
>> convenience installer, you may use "maven" as the packaging name provided
>> the description clarifies it is a custom build and provides an ack of our
>> marks. Also the version number is different if patches have been applied.
>> Would that be an acceptable defence of our mark?
>> On Wed 19 Aug 2015 at 09:46, Stephen Connolly <
>>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 02:47 Niclas Hedhman <> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes that was my analysis of the question: If I decide to produce an
>>>> > unofficial binary release of Maven without the approval of the rest
>>>> of the
>>>> > PMC, I may not call it Maven. If I did call it Maven then the
>>>> remainder of
>>>> > the PMC would be responsible for sending me a C&D.
>>>> >
>>>> Well, if  "Debian" can publish their built Apache Maven as "maven" and
>>>> "Steve&Nick" can't publish their built Apache Maven as "maven", then
>>>> 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.
>>> Well I actually have concerns about the "maven" that debian is
>>> publishing. There are some quite significant - in my view - deviations from
>>> our Maven.
>>> For me, the majority of the concerns could be addressed if they fix the
>>> *Description* to clarify that it is a modified distribution of Apache Maven
>>> *and* they add an ACK to the trademarks in the description of the package.
>>> The open question remains, is the *Package Name* a name that could be
>>> viewed as use of the trademark?
>>> Do the end users - i.e. developers - expect that `apt-get install maven`
>>> is installing Apache Maven? If they are junior developers my experience
>>> suggest they may think so...
>>> So if `apt-get install maven` causes confusion with our brand, we may
>>> have to ask Debian what they suggest they could do to remove the confusion.
>>> There are simple solutions, e.g. change the package name to mvn; stop
>>> making such large sweeping changes to our product; etc
>>> But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical name
>>> usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark.
>>> This gets even more confusing with some of their packaged maven plugins,
>>> which for interop need to use maven:
>>> obvious with Fedora:
>>> Thankfully in these cases I believe the source code is not patched, but it
>>> is binaries rebuilt from source not pulled down from Maven Central... which
>>> can cause issues for users.
>>> Fun Fun Fun
>>>> Niclas

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message