[Gt-eos] gtk source repo location

[Brian Bockelman]

Hi,

Indeed - I was going to chime in with a similar comment as Frank.

Condor went through the same thing a few years back.  In the end, they weren't allowed to release a product named "Condor" and host a webpage saying "this is Condor", but there wasn't any need to rename functions / packags / command line tools.

Similarly, you can have a function named "google_this" but you will get sued out of existence if you named your product "The Google".

Another example is CentOS, which takes care to remove references to "RedHat" in significant parts of their releases and replace it with "The Upstream Vendor".

I'd argue that we don't need to start doing an extensive scrubbing a-priori, but can do the reasonably obvious stuff and only go to the harder level as necessary.

I would propose:
- Create an org, rename the repository.
  - Focus on getting CI builds, testing, and automated packaging going.
- In any future release notes, carefully state that it is the "community-maintained version of the software provided by the Globus Toolkit."
- Engage with the EPEL / Fedora / Debian / Ubuntu maintainers to do what's right for their respective communities.

Brian

> On Oct 20, 2017, at 8:56 AM, Brian Lin <blin at cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
> 
> Frank,
> 
> Does this mean that we can keep the repository name the same (e.g. just fork it in GitHub)? How about the EPEL/Debian/Ubuntu packaging? That would certainly make life easier for everyone all around and we'd just have to worry about the name of the GitHub org.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian
> 
> On 10/20/2017 08:45 AM, Frank Scheiner wrote:
>> Hi all, 
>> 
>> On 10/20/2017 03:31 PM, Frank Scheiner wrote: 
>>> Hi Oliver, 
>>> 
>>> On 10/20/2017 03:27 PM, Oliver Keeble wrote: 
>>>> [...] 
>>>>>> There is by the way another important issue with not being able to use 
>>>>>> the word globus: it's in almost every library name in the toolkit. So if 
>>>>>> we want to/must remove it from there too, we need a rebuild of each 
>>>>>> globus-depending software product... It also could mean having all the 
>>>>>> products needing re-adoption into Fedora/EPEL and Debian. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is it something that can be avoided? 
>>>> 
>>>> I think it can certainly be avoided. Globus may trademark the name (have they?) 
>>> 
>>> Yes, they have. See the bottom message on [1] and [2]. 
>>> 
>>> [1]: http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/ <http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/> 
>>> 
>>> [2]: http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/contributions.html#Cobranding <http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/contributions.html#Cobranding> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Although "Globus" is a trademark, the use of "Globus"/"globus" in the source code in file names, directory names, function, variable, etc. names and the names of compiled executables and libraries is a different thing, I believe. 
>> 
>> The source code contains "Globus"/"globus" everywhere but is licensed under an Open Source license, which in my eyes includes reuse as-is without prior changes, even for binaries, as the names for the binaries are determined by the Makefiles which are part of the source code. 
>> 
>> Cheers, 
>> Frank 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gt-eos mailing list
>> Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu <mailto:Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu>
>> http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos <http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gt-eos mailing list
> Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu
> http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.egi.eu/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20171020/0f663f41/attachment.html>