Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [wtp-pmc] Open server adapter contributions

I see two potential sources of problems:

  • Duplicate names. Having multiple “WebLogic”, “WebSphere”, or other adapters in the list with no disambiguation (other than possibly following links) seems like a problem for commercial adopters, and may cause them trademark angst. Even non-commercial server runtime providers may worry about the potential for user confusion. Do you think that including the provider’s name/org inline is problematic? I’m all for making it uniform and pretty as a separate column if that helps.
  • Logo use rules. Right to redistribute the bits in a logo isn’t sufficient – the use of an organization’s logo establishes a reasonable perception on the part of an end user that that organization (rather than some 3rd party) is providing the runtime. That’s not an assumption that the logo owner may be happy with, and we need to be conservative about allowing 3rd parties to encumber Apache or other organizations with unfair expectations.

 

Let me know what you think…I want to find the simplest policy/UI that prevents problems.

 


From: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lawrence Mandel
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:42 PM
To: WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)
Subject: RE: [wtp-pmc] Open server adapter contributions

 


Tim,

>  * Only the organization who owns a logo/trademark can associate it
>with a server runtime. This is necessary to protect the rights of the
>owner.

I don't think this is necessary for open source projects with friendly licenses such as Apache.

>  * Server runtimes contributed from 3rd parties are identified by the
>name of the contributor. E.g.: "Caucho server runtime (contributed by
>Gunnar Wagenknecht)". That makes the source clear, and users will be
>informed of the source of the runtime.

Are you suggesting that the Server wizard in WTP list

"Caucho server runtime (contributed by Gunnar Wagenknecht)"

as the server name? If so, I'd prefer to name the server "Caucho server runtime" and add a way to associate the source with the server such as an about button.

Lawrence Mandel

Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814   Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
lmandel@xxxxxxxxxx


"Tim Wagner" <twagner@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/25/2006 10:06 PM

Please respond to
"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,  and Group discussions)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To

"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,  and Group discussions)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc

 

Subject

RE: [wtp-pmc] Open server adapter contributions

 

 

 




We're essentially at feature cut-off for 1.5, so at this point I think
installable server runtimes are the only option for this release to
preserve stability.

W.r.t. the other question...we have to walk a careful line here. While
we should accept legitimate code contributions from all sources, I
suggest that we also adopt the following policies:

 * Only the organization who owns a logo/trademark can associate it
with a server runtime. This is necessary to protect the rights of the
owner.

 * Server runtimes contributed from 3rd parties are identified by the
name of the contributor. E.g.: "Caucho server runtime (contributed by
Gunnar Wagenknecht)". That makes the source clear, and users will be
informed of the source of the runtime.


-----Original Message-----
From: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gorkem Ercan
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:12 PM
To: wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wtp-pmc] Open server adapter contributions

Hello,
I would like to get the PMC opinion on  two server adapter contributions

that are submitted via bugzilla.
The first contribution[ 1] is for Caucho Resin by Gunnar Wagenknecht
The second contribution[2] is for Pramati Server by Navalkumar
Zavar(Pramati)

I would like to get the PMC opinion whether if we may continue to
distribute more server adapters in WTP or we should direct contributors
and accept these contributions as an installable server adapter.
Also what is our criteria for accepting those contributions ( other than

the technical ones, of course ).For example, To ensure a continuation of

support should we accept contributions from individuals or only from
organizations
that actually develop the servers?

[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=130733
[2] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137473

--
Thanks,
Gorkem
_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc
_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc


Back to the top