incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:30:41 GMT
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <>

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning <> wrote:
> > Roman,
> >
> > That was a *really* long email.
> Well, I do those from time to time ;-)
> > 1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play
> at
> > all. Instead, there are two things that happen.  The first is that the
> > approves releases which defines each such release as an Apache release.
> > The second process is that the ASF controls the use of its trademarks.
> The question is: do we have ASF-wide trademark guidelines or do
> we allow each PMC to make those as they go.

Yes. We do have ASF-wide trademark guidelines and we also allow PMC's to
have pretty broad latitude within those boundaries.  The PMC definitely
should not be making things up, but they do have a lot of responsibility
for deciding what they don't like.

> 2) Apache Approved releases are approved collections of software.
> That's way too vague for me. I'm not really sure what 'software' means.

That is going to be hard for me to help you with.

> > The PMC approves artifacts containing known as releases and validates
> their
> > contents with signatures so that consumers can verify this. Only approved
> > releases should be referred to as Apache releases, but anybody else can
> > make their own releases under any level of diligence that they would like
> > to apply.  This is well covered in the release policy:
> >
> The devil, as usual, is in the details. When I look at something like:
> it is very tempting to assume it was a release of ASF software.

And you might take that to the Apache httpd PMC.

> 3) The control of the abstract concept of the brand is done via trademarks
> > which is all about how the trademarked words and logos are used and has
> > nothing much to do with content of releases and everything to do with
> > control and possibility of confusion.
> I disagree. ASF owns the trademarks, but then it is up to the foundaiton
> to define clear guidelines.

I am not clear what you disagree with.  I didn't say that the ASF didn't
own the trademarks so that can hardly be the problem.  The fact that
trademarks are only protected insofar as confusing usage is trademarks 101

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