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
