[Gt-eos] gtk source repo location

[Mischa Salle]

Hi all,

I had a look in the Globus License (basically identical to Apache 2.0),
see
https://github.com/globus/globus-toolkit/blob/globus_6_branch/GLOBUS_LICENSE

See point 4C and 6:
    4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
    Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
    modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet
    the following conditions:
	[...]
	c. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
	that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
	attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding
	those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative
	Works; and
    "6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the
    trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the
    Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in
    describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the
    NOTICE file."

Important is also that the name Globus Toolkit itself is trademarked:
    https://trademarks.justia.com/760/66/globus-76066138.html
i.e. the product name in APL2.0. However, we do require it "for
reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work"
So I would say we probably can just retain the name of the *software*,
as long as we mention that it came from Univ. of Chicago. What we use
for the community is not so important for me.

Mischa

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 09:06:33AM -0500, Brian Bockelman wrote:
> 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
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Gt-eos mailing list
> Gt-eos at mailman.egi.eu
> http://mailman.egi.eu/mailman/listinfo/gt-eos


-- 
Nikhef                      Room  H155
Science Park 105            Tel.  +31-20-592 5102
1098 XG Amsterdam           Fax   +31-20-592 5155
The Netherlands             Email msalle at nikhef.nl
  __ .. ... _._. .... ._  ... ._ ._.. ._.. .._..
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3402 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.egi.eu/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20171020/ca5f96b8/attachment.p7s>