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 Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:17:57 GMT
So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff:

1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there.
2. The package description should call out those cases where there are
significant deviations from the "official" distributions. Significant
deviations will be determined by the individual PMCs as they know what is
significant and what is not.

That leaves the technical package name.

Is using our mark in the technical package name (which cannot have space to
ACK the mark, but assuming there is an ACK of the mark in the description)
an issue?

So if we have:

package-name: foo
description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo.
  Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar.
  Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software

is the Manchu packaging of Foo ok to use foo as the package name?

It would seem to be a disservice to users to force Manchu to pick a
different name for Foo (i.e. the firefox vs iceweasel issue)

On the other hand, packaging up Apache Foo for the Manchu installer
framework may require significant patching of Apache Foo such that it is
necessary to declare that it is *based on Apache Foo*

Compare and contrast with homebrew's packaging of Apache Maven where they
just download the convenience binary published by the Apache Maven team...
that seems reasonable to be called `maven` because it is actually
installing exactly what the Apache Maven team released without

Shane, do you need further clarifications?

On 25 August 2015 at 11:52, Roman Shaposhnik <> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly
> <> wrote:
> > 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.
> Makes two of us. I see a log of good consensus on this thread which helps
> me get a gut feel on what is the right way to go about enforcing the use
> of the mark. That said, I still would love to read Shane's meditation
> on the matter ;-)
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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