On Hudson's future

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
56 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

On Hudson's future

Andrew Bayer
(note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)

First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.


Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself, Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss), who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side. 


These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.


Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name), they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity. 


Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process, etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in order to retain the rights to the name. 


In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of its own name, and we believe that's not viable.


As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name. This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.


First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins, which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope they'll take us up on this invitation.


Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a gradual process, obviously. 


Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project, consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections for the board members.


Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments. If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to answer.


Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we can.


There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are, obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins, that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the name.


A.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Administrator
I full endorse/support this proposal, and here is my take on the
situation: http://kohsuke.org/bye-bye-hudson-hello-jenkins/

2011/1/11 Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>:

> (note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog
> at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)
>
> First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle situation
> for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the holidays have
> slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information that would
> later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks to reach a
> resolution - and I believe they now have.
>
> Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from the
> Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the project in
> a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself, Kohsuke
> Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss), who was
> brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a
> corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder
> and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side.
>
> These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working agreements
> with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists and SCM
> repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and perhaps most
> significantly, a governance structure for the project going forward. Some
> issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on restrictions on
> third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we feel is the most
> significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no resolution is
> possible: the rights to the name Hudson.
>
> Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both the
> EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while working at
> Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle the ability
> to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at any time, and
> while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees (most notably,
> that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released with the name
> Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name), they are not
> offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be able to
> retain its use of the name in perpetuity.
>
> Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the
> project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board
> opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to
> take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could
> insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process,
> etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in
> order to retain the rights to the name.
>
> In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the
> goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson
> as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of
> its own name, and we believe that's not viable.
>
> As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename it,
> in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name. This
> is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other choice
> available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project going
> forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project continuing
> under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes available
> and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other prominent
> Hudson community members and I have endorsed.
>
> First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins, which
> we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've
> already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have
> done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would
> conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in
> his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the
> umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has
> been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully
> in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had
> preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved
> with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope
> they'll take us up on this invitation.
>
> Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will move
> our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will
> rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer
> use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a
> gradual process, obviously.
>
> Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project,
> consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to
> remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The
> interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the
> governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections
> for the board members.
>
> Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and
> support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice
> for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing
> off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments.
> If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to
> answer.
>
> Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully Wednesday,
> possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly advise you to
> read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the position of
> the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is to rename,
> we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we can.
>
> There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork Hudson, or
> rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing the latter -
> for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the community
> decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle chooses to
> continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are, obviously,
> entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins, that's the
> true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the name.
>
> A.



--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: On Hudson's future

Nord, James
In reply to this post by Andrew Bayer

What about the use of hudson internally (ie code) that is exposed (rest calls plugin api URLs)?

 

Would this mean all core code (and plugins) would need to be updated (as well as the POMs groupID).

 

/James

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andrew Bayer
Sent: 11 January 2011 15:01
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: On Hudson's future

 

(note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)

 

First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.

 

Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself, Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss), who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side. 

 

These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.

 

Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name), they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity. 

 

Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process, etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in order to retain the rights to the name. 

 

In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of its own name, and we believe that's not viable.

 

As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name. This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.

 

First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins, which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope they'll take us up on this invitation.

 

Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a gradual process, obviously. 

 

Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project, consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections for the board members.

 

Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments. If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to answer.

 

Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we can.

 

There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are, obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins, that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the name.

 

A.




**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the [hidden email] and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.

NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
**************************************************************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: On Hudson's future

Costin Caraivan
If the URLs will need to be updated to remove "hudson", I hope at least that the name will be taken out of the URLs. Just in case Jenkins is trademarked too :o)
 
I think the poms don't matter much, they won't break anything (old versions will use old poms while new versions will use new poms).
 
Regards,
_______________
Costin Caraivan
 


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nord, James
Sent: 11 ianuarie 2011 17:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: On Hudson's future

What about the use of hudson internally (ie code) that is exposed (rest calls plugin api URLs)?

 

Would this mean all core code (and plugins) would need to be updated (as well as the POMs groupID).

 

/James

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Administrator
In reply to this post by Nord, James
2011/1/11 Nord, James <[hidden email]>:
> What about the use of hudson internally (ie code) that is exposed (rest
> calls plugin api URLs)?

I could be wrong, but I believe the package name is a part of the
source code and under the MIT license --- for example, when we patch
Apache Commons Jelly, we don't rename all the packages, even though
ASF owns the name Apache (it's probably trademarked, too.)

It is also possible and relatively simple to do a bulk package
renaming, then play a classloader trick to modify plugin class files
on the fly. In a mid/long term we should think about doing this.

> Would this mean all core code (and plugins) would need to be updated (as
> well as the POMs groupID).

By the extension of the above logic, I think the group ID in POM would
need to be changed.


> /James
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Andrew Bayer
> Sent: 11 January 2011 15:01
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: On Hudson's future
>
>
>
> (note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog
> at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)
>
>
>
> First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle situation
> for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the holidays have
> slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information that would
> later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks to reach a
> resolution - and I believe they now have.
>
>
>
> Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from the
> Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the project in
> a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself, Kohsuke
> Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss), who was
> brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a
> corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder
> and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side.
>
>
>
> These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working agreements
> with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists and SCM
> repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and perhaps most
> significantly, a governance structure for the project going forward. Some
> issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on restrictions on
> third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we feel is the most
> significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no resolution is
> possible: the rights to the name Hudson.
>
>
>
> Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both the
> EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while working at
> Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle the ability
> to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at any time, and
> while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees (most notably,
> that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released with the name
> Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name), they are not
> offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be able to
> retain its use of the name in perpetuity.
>
>
>
> Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the
> project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board
> opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to
> take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could
> insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process,
> etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in
> order to retain the rights to the name.
>
>
>
> In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the
> goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson
> as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of
> its own name, and we believe that's not viable.
>
>
>
> As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename it,
> in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name. This
> is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other choice
> available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project going
> forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project continuing
> under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes available
> and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other prominent
> Hudson community members and I have endorsed.
>
>
>
> First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins, which
> we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've
> already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have
> done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would
> conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in
> his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the
> umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has
> been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully
> in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had
> preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved
> with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope
> they'll take us up on this invitation.
>
>
>
> Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will move
> our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will
> rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer
> use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a
> gradual process, obviously.
>
>
>
> Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project,
> consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to
> remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The
> interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the
> governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections
> for the board members.
>
>
>
> Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and
> support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice
> for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing
> off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments.
> If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to
> answer.
>
>
>
> Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully Wednesday,
> possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly advise you to
> read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the position of
> the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is to rename,
> we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we can.
>
>
>
> There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork Hudson, or
> rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing the latter -
> for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the community
> decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle chooses to
> continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are, obviously,
> entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins, that's the
> true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the name.
>
>
>
> A.
>
> ________________________________
> **************************************************************************************
> This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you
> have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
> [hidden email] and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The
> content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for
> employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not
> print this e-mail unless necessary.
>
> NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18
> 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered
> no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
> **************************************************************************************
>



--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Jesse Glick-2
On 01/11/2011 12:44 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I believe the package name is a part of the
> source code and under the MIT license

I hope so. Changing package names would be quite disruptive. (Consider XStream serialization of old plugin metadata, ...)

> By the extension of the above logic, I think the group ID in POM would
> need to be changed.

This would also be disruptive, though not nearly so bad; Maven tooling (e.g. versions-maven-plugin) is designed to assume that groupId:artifactId coordinates are not
changed spuriously.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Tim Pizey-2
In reply to this post by Andrew Bayer
Congratulations on a courageous decision that must be a personal
wrench for some.

I do hope that someone who is a lawyer, or knows one, has investigated
bocking the name grab, but a clean break is best.

AB wrote:
[snip]
> for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself.

well said

I have become very attached to Hudson but it is time to say
"That will be all Hudson" and welcome Jenkins to the staff.

Tim

--
Tim Pizey - http://pizey.net/~timp
Centre for Genomics and Global Health - http://cggh.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

asgeirn
In reply to this post by Andrew Bayer
A brave and apparently necessary move indeed.  Glad you found a better name than "Johnson" which I jokingly thought about forking it to.. ;)

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 16:01, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
(note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)

First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.


Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself, Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss), who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side. 


These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.


Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name), they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity. 


Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process, etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in order to retain the rights to the name. 


In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of its own name, and we believe that's not viable.


As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name. This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.


First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins, which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope they'll take us up on this invitation.


Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a gradual process, obviously. 


Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project, consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections for the board members.


Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments. If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to answer.


Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we can.


There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are, obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins, that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the name.


A.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: On Hudson's future

Nord, James
In reply to this post by Jesse Glick-2
You can manage the dependencies (changing the groups) with Maven relocations, so should be much less disruptive.
It doesn't work well (at all) for plugins though.

/James

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jesse Glick
Sent: 11 January 2011 17:49
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: On Hudson's future

On 01/11/2011 12:44 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I believe the package name is a part of the
> source code and under the MIT license

I hope so. Changing package names would be quite disruptive. (Consider XStream serialization of old plugin metadata, ...)

> By the extension of the above logic, I think the group ID in POM would
> need to be changed.

This would also be disruptive, though not nearly so bad; Maven tooling (e.g. versions-maven-plugin) is designed to assume that groupId:artifactId coordinates are not changed spuriously.


**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the [hidden email] and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.

NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
**************************************************************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Andrew Bayer
In reply to this post by Andrew Bayer
FYI - I haven't heard anything from Oracle on their proposal yet, but I do believe they are working on it. Are any of the Oracle people on these lists able to give an update and/or timeframe?

A.

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
(note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)

First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.


Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself, Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss), who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side. 


These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.


Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name), they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity. 


Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process, etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in order to retain the rights to the name. 


In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of its own name, and we believe that's not viable.


As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name. This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.


First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins, which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope they'll take us up on this invitation.


Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a gradual process, obviously. 


Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project, consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections for the board members.


Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments. If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to answer.


Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we can.


There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are, obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins, that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the name.


A.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Andrew Bayer
We've now reached over a week since I sent this email out, and we still haven't heard anything from Oracle. I don't know when they plan to send it out, and I'm also not sure how long we should continue to wait before moving on a vote. Community - what are your thoughts on how long to wait?

Oracle people, please let us know ASAP what's going on with your proposal.

A.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
FYI - I haven't heard anything from Oracle on their proposal yet, but I do believe they are working on it. Are any of the Oracle people on these lists able to give an update and/or timeframe?

A.


On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
(note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)

First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.


Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself, Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss), who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side. 


These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.


Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name), they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity. 


Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process, etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in order to retain the rights to the name. 


In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of its own name, and we believe that's not viable.


As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name. This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.


First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins, which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope they'll take us up on this invitation.


Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a gradual process, obviously. 


Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project, consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections for the board members.


Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments. If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to answer.


Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we can.


There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are, obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins, that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the name.


A.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

slide
At this point, I'd say they've had the time the get a proposal out there and haven't. Setup the community poll (hopefully not an email poll, that generates WAY too much traffic) and let the community move on.

slide

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
We've now reached over a week since I sent this email out, and we still haven't heard anything from Oracle. I don't know when they plan to send it out, and I'm also not sure how long we should continue to wait before moving on a vote. Community - what are your thoughts on how long to wait?

Oracle people, please let us know ASAP what's going on with your proposal.

A.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
FYI - I haven't heard anything from Oracle on their proposal yet, but I do believe they are working on it. Are any of the Oracle people on these lists able to give an update and/or timeframe?

A.


On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
(note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)

First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.


Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself, Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss), who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side. 


These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.


Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name), they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity. 


Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process, etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in order to retain the rights to the name. 


In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of its own name, and we believe that's not viable.


As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name. This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.


First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins, which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope they'll take us up on this invitation.


Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a gradual process, obviously. 


Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project, consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections for the board members.


Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments. If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to answer.


Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we can.


There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are, obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins, that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the name.


A.






--
slide-o-blog
http://slide-o-blog.blogspot.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Arnaud Héritier-2
+1 with Slide.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Slide <[hidden email]> wrote:

> At this point, I'd say they've had the time the get a proposal out there and
> haven't. Setup the community poll (hopefully not an email poll, that
> generates WAY too much traffic) and let the community move on.
> slide
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> We've now reached over a week since I sent this email out, and we still
>> haven't heard anything from Oracle. I don't know when they plan to send it
>> out, and I'm also not sure how long we should continue to wait before moving
>> on a vote. Community - what are your thoughts on how long to wait?
>> Oracle people, please let us know ASAP what's going on with your proposal.
>>
>> A.
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> FYI - I haven't heard anything from Oracle on their proposal yet, but I
>>> do believe they are working on it. Are any of the Oracle people on these
>>> lists able to give an update and/or timeframe?
>>> A.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog
>>>> at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)
>>>>
>>>> First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle
>>>> situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the
>>>> holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information
>>>> that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks
>>>> to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.
>>>>
>>>> Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from
>>>> the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the
>>>> project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself,
>>>> Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss),
>>>> who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a
>>>> corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder
>>>> and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side.
>>>>
>>>> These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working
>>>> agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists
>>>> and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and
>>>> perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going
>>>> forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on
>>>> restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we
>>>> feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no
>>>> resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.
>>>>
>>>> Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both
>>>> the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while
>>>> working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle
>>>> the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at
>>>> any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees
>>>> (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released
>>>> with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name),
>>>> they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be
>>>> able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the
>>>> project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board
>>>> opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to
>>>> take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could
>>>> insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process,
>>>> etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in
>>>> order to retain the rights to the name.
>>>>
>>>> In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the
>>>> goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson
>>>> as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of
>>>> its own name, and we believe that's not viable.
>>>>
>>>> As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename
>>>> it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name.
>>>> This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other
>>>> choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project
>>>> going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project
>>>> continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes
>>>> available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other
>>>> prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.
>>>>
>>>> First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins,
>>>> which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've
>>>> already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have
>>>> done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would
>>>> conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in
>>>> his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the
>>>> umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has
>>>> been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully
>>>> in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had
>>>> preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved
>>>> with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope
>>>> they'll take us up on this invitation.
>>>>
>>>> Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will
>>>> move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will
>>>> rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer
>>>> use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a
>>>> gradual process, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project,
>>>> consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to
>>>> remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The
>>>> interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the
>>>> governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections
>>>> for the board members.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and
>>>> support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice
>>>> for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing
>>>> off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments.
>>>> If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully
>>>> Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly
>>>> advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the
>>>> position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is
>>>> to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we
>>>> can.
>>>>
>>>> There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork
>>>> Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing
>>>> the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the
>>>> community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle
>>>> chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are,
>>>> obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins,
>>>> that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the
>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> A.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> slide-o-blog
> http://slide-o-blog.blogspot.com/
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Frederic Camblor
+1

2011/1/18 Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>
+1 with Slide.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Slide <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At this point, I'd say they've had the time the get a proposal out there and
> haven't. Setup the community poll (hopefully not an email poll, that
> generates WAY too much traffic) and let the community move on.
> slide
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> We've now reached over a week since I sent this email out, and we still
>> haven't heard anything from Oracle. I don't know when they plan to send it
>> out, and I'm also not sure how long we should continue to wait before moving
>> on a vote. Community - what are your thoughts on how long to wait?
>> Oracle people, please let us know ASAP what's going on with your proposal.
>>
>> A.
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> FYI - I haven't heard anything from Oracle on their proposal yet, but I
>>> do believe they are working on it. Are any of the Oracle people on these
>>> lists able to give an update and/or timeframe?
>>> A.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog
>>>> at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)
>>>>
>>>> First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle
>>>> situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the
>>>> holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information
>>>> that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks
>>>> to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.
>>>>
>>>> Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from
>>>> the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the
>>>> project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself,
>>>> Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss),
>>>> who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a
>>>> corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder
>>>> and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side.
>>>>
>>>> These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working
>>>> agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists
>>>> and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and
>>>> perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going
>>>> forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on
>>>> restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we
>>>> feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no
>>>> resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.
>>>>
>>>> Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both
>>>> the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while
>>>> working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle
>>>> the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at
>>>> any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees
>>>> (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released
>>>> with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name),
>>>> they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be
>>>> able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the
>>>> project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board
>>>> opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to
>>>> take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could
>>>> insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process,
>>>> etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in
>>>> order to retain the rights to the name.
>>>>
>>>> In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the
>>>> goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson
>>>> as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of
>>>> its own name, and we believe that's not viable.
>>>>
>>>> As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename
>>>> it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name.
>>>> This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other
>>>> choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project
>>>> going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project
>>>> continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes
>>>> available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other
>>>> prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.
>>>>
>>>> First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins,
>>>> which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've
>>>> already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have
>>>> done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would
>>>> conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in
>>>> his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the
>>>> umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has
>>>> been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully
>>>> in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had
>>>> preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved
>>>> with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope
>>>> they'll take us up on this invitation.
>>>>
>>>> Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will
>>>> move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will
>>>> rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer
>>>> use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a
>>>> gradual process, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project,
>>>> consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to
>>>> remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The
>>>> interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the
>>>> governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections
>>>> for the board members.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and
>>>> support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice
>>>> for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing
>>>> off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments.
>>>> If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully
>>>> Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly
>>>> advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the
>>>> position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is
>>>> to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we
>>>> can.
>>>>
>>>> There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork
>>>> Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing
>>>> the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the
>>>> community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle
>>>> chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are,
>>>> obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins,
>>>> that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the
>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> A.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> slide-o-blog
> http://slide-o-blog.blogspot.com/
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

vlatombe
+1. Maybe Google Moderator could be used?

Vincent


2011/1/19 Frederic Camblor <[hidden email]>
+1

2011/1/18 Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>

+1 with Slide.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Slide <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At this point, I'd say they've had the time the get a proposal out there and
> haven't. Setup the community poll (hopefully not an email poll, that
> generates WAY too much traffic) and let the community move on.
> slide
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> We've now reached over a week since I sent this email out, and we still
>> haven't heard anything from Oracle. I don't know when they plan to send it
>> out, and I'm also not sure how long we should continue to wait before moving
>> on a vote. Community - what are your thoughts on how long to wait?
>> Oracle people, please let us know ASAP what's going on with your proposal.
>>
>> A.
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> FYI - I haven't heard anything from Oracle on their proposal yet, but I
>>> do believe they are working on it. Are any of the Oracle people on these
>>> lists able to give an update and/or timeframe?
>>> A.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog
>>>> at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)
>>>>
>>>> First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle
>>>> situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the
>>>> holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information
>>>> that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks
>>>> to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.
>>>>
>>>> Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from
>>>> the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the
>>>> project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself,
>>>> Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss),
>>>> who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a
>>>> corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder
>>>> and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side.
>>>>
>>>> These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working
>>>> agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists
>>>> and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and
>>>> perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going
>>>> forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on
>>>> restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we
>>>> feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no
>>>> resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.
>>>>
>>>> Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both
>>>> the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while
>>>> working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle
>>>> the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at
>>>> any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees
>>>> (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released
>>>> with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name),
>>>> they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be
>>>> able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the
>>>> project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board
>>>> opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to
>>>> take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could
>>>> insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process,
>>>> etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in
>>>> order to retain the rights to the name.
>>>>
>>>> In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the
>>>> goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson
>>>> as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of
>>>> its own name, and we believe that's not viable.
>>>>
>>>> As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename
>>>> it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name.
>>>> This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other
>>>> choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project
>>>> going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project
>>>> continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes
>>>> available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other
>>>> prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.
>>>>
>>>> First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins,
>>>> which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've
>>>> already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have
>>>> done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would
>>>> conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in
>>>> his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the
>>>> umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has
>>>> been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully
>>>> in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had
>>>> preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved
>>>> with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope
>>>> they'll take us up on this invitation.
>>>>
>>>> Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will
>>>> move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will
>>>> rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer
>>>> use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a
>>>> gradual process, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project,
>>>> consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to
>>>> remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The
>>>> interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the
>>>> governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections
>>>> for the board members.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and
>>>> support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice
>>>> for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing
>>>> off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments.
>>>> If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully
>>>> Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly
>>>> advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the
>>>> position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is
>>>> to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we
>>>> can.
>>>>
>>>> There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork
>>>> Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing
>>>> the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the
>>>> community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle
>>>> chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are,
>>>> obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins,
>>>> that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the
>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> A.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> slide-o-blog
> http://slide-o-blog.blogspot.com/
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

dan twining-2
Or a form backed by google docs (I tried out both when we voted on google groups for the mailing list, and the docs-based form seemed to work better, but I'm happy with either)

On 19 January 2011 08:55, Vincent Latombe <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1. Maybe Google Moderator could be used?

Vincent


2011/1/19 Frederic Camblor <[hidden email]>

+1

2011/1/18 Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>

+1 with Slide.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Slide <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At this point, I'd say they've had the time the get a proposal out there and
> haven't. Setup the community poll (hopefully not an email poll, that
> generates WAY too much traffic) and let the community move on.
> slide
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> We've now reached over a week since I sent this email out, and we still
>> haven't heard anything from Oracle. I don't know when they plan to send it
>> out, and I'm also not sure how long we should continue to wait before moving
>> on a vote. Community - what are your thoughts on how long to wait?
>> Oracle people, please let us know ASAP what's going on with your proposal.
>>
>> A.
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> FYI - I haven't heard anything from Oracle on their proposal yet, but I
>>> do believe they are working on it. Are any of the Oracle people on these
>>> lists able to give an update and/or timeframe?
>>> A.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog
>>>> at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)
>>>>
>>>> First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle
>>>> situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the
>>>> holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out information
>>>> that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the talks
>>>> to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.
>>>>
>>>> Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives from
>>>> the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of the
>>>> project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been myself,
>>>> Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and Kohsuke's boss),
>>>> who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a
>>>> corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with Alan Harder
>>>> and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side.
>>>>
>>>> These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working
>>>> agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as mailing lists
>>>> and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core, and
>>>> perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project going
>>>> forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as questions on
>>>> restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue, which we
>>>> feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now believe no
>>>> resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.
>>>>
>>>> Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in both
>>>> the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke while
>>>> working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives Oracle
>>>> the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself Hudson at
>>>> any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some guarantees
>>>> (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been released
>>>> with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the name),
>>>> they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project will be
>>>> able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of the
>>>> project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance board
>>>> opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be able to
>>>> take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle could
>>>> insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions, process,
>>>> etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community, in
>>>> order to retain the rights to the name.
>>>>
>>>> In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of the
>>>> goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle - Hudson
>>>> as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued use of
>>>> its own name, and we believe that's not viable.
>>>>
>>>> As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to rename
>>>> it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its name.
>>>> This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any other
>>>> choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the project
>>>> going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the project
>>>> continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it becomes
>>>> available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke, other
>>>> prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.
>>>>
>>>> First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins,
>>>> which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as Hudson. We've
>>>> already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and have
>>>> done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which would
>>>> conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for Jenkins in
>>>> his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark to the
>>>> umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins project has
>>>> been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan, hopefully
>>>> in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already had
>>>> preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain involved
>>>> with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and hope
>>>> they'll take us up on this invitation.
>>>>
>>>> Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we will
>>>> move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and we will
>>>> rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no longer
>>>> use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be a
>>>> gradual process, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the project,
>>>> consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects to
>>>> remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on Hudson. The
>>>> interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the
>>>> governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold elections
>>>> for the board members.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement and
>>>> support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the best choice
>>>> for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't closing
>>>> off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and comments.
>>>> If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our best to
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully
>>>> Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I strongly
>>>> advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to determine the
>>>> position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the consensus is
>>>> to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as fast we
>>>> can.
>>>>
>>>> There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork
>>>> Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are proposing
>>>> the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself. If the
>>>> community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and Oracle
>>>> chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson, they are,
>>>> obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on Jenkins,
>>>> that's the true home and the future of the project for me, regardless of the
>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> A.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> slide-o-blog
> http://slide-o-blog.blogspot.com/
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Erik Ramfelt
In reply to this post by vlatombe
Since the Hudson/Jenikns blog is powered by drupal, couldnt we use any
of its voting capabilities on a blog item?
http://drupal.org/documentation/modules/poll

Regards
//Erik

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:55, Vincent Latombe
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1. Maybe Google Moderator could be used?
> Vincent
>
>
> 2011/1/19 Frederic Camblor <[hidden email]>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> 2011/1/18 Arnaud Héritier <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> +1 with Slide.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Slide <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > At this point, I'd say they've had the time the get a proposal out
>>> > there and
>>> > haven't. Setup the community poll (hopefully not an email poll, that
>>> > generates WAY too much traffic) and let the community move on.
>>> > slide
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> We've now reached over a week since I sent this email out, and we
>>> >> still
>>> >> haven't heard anything from Oracle. I don't know when they plan to
>>> >> send it
>>> >> out, and I'm also not sure how long we should continue to wait before
>>> >> moving
>>> >> on a vote. Community - what are your thoughts on how long to wait?
>>> >> Oracle people, please let us know ASAP what's going on with your
>>> >> proposal.
>>> >>
>>> >> A.
>>> >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <[hidden email]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> FYI - I haven't heard anything from Oracle on their proposal yet, but
>>> >>> I
>>> >>> do believe they are working on it. Are any of the Oracle people on
>>> >>> these
>>> >>> lists able to give an update and/or timeframe?
>>> >>> A.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bayer
>>> >>> <[hidden email]>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> (note - this is also up at the hudson-labs.org blog
>>> >>>> at http://hudson-labs.org/content/hudsons-future)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> First, my apologies for the lack of updates on the Hudson/Oracle
>>> >>>> situation for the last few weeks. While talks have been ongoing, the
>>> >>>> holidays have slowed things down, and we didn't want to send out
>>> >>>> information
>>> >>>> that would later turn out not to be true. We've been waiting for the
>>> >>>> talks
>>> >>>> to reach a resolution - and I believe they now have.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Since the java.net migration problems, Oracle and representatives
>>> >>>> from
>>> >>>> the Hudson community have been involved in talks on the future of
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> project in a number of areas. The Hudson representatives have been
>>> >>>> myself,
>>> >>>> Kohsuke Kawaguchi, and Sacha Labourey (CEO of CloudBees and
>>> >>>> Kohsuke's boss),
>>> >>>> who was brought in to help provide experience with discussions on a
>>> >>>> corporate/executive level which neither Kohsuke nor I have, with
>>> >>>> Alan Harder
>>> >>>> and R. Tyler Croy advising on the side.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> These talks have in many ways been fruitful - we came to working
>>> >>>> agreements with Oracle on the project infrastructure (such as
>>> >>>> mailing lists
>>> >>>> and SCM repository location), code review policy for Hudson core,
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> perhaps most significantly, a governance structure for the project
>>> >>>> going
>>> >>>> forward. Some issues are not yet entirely resolved, such as
>>> >>>> questions on
>>> >>>> restrictions on third party dependency licenses. But one issue,
>>> >>>> which we
>>> >>>> feel is the most significant issue of all, one for which we now
>>> >>>> believe no
>>> >>>> resolution is possible: the rights to the name Hudson.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Oracle has told us that they have trademark applications filed in
>>> >>>> both
>>> >>>> the EU and US for Hudson, based on Hudson's creation by Kohsuke
>>> >>>> while
>>> >>>> working at Sun. The problem is that this trademark ownership gives
>>> >>>> Oracle
>>> >>>> the ability to revoke the Hudson project's right to call itself
>>> >>>> Hudson at
>>> >>>> any time, and while Oracle has made an attempt to offer some
>>> >>>> guarantees
>>> >>>> (most notably, that binary releases of Hudson, once they've been
>>> >>>> released
>>> >>>> with the name Hudson attached, will always retain the right to the
>>> >>>> name),
>>> >>>> they are not offering any binding guarantee that the Hudson project
>>> >>>> will be
>>> >>>> able to retain its use of the name in perpetuity.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Therefore, to continue using the name Hudson means ceding some of
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> project's independence to Oracle - if the project and its governance
>>> >>>> board
>>> >>>> opted to go in a direction Oracle disapproved of, Oracle would be
>>> >>>> able to
>>> >>>> take away the naming rights. Or, in a less dramatic scenario, Oracle
>>> >>>> could
>>> >>>> insist on certain changes to the code, infrastructure decisions,
>>> >>>> process,
>>> >>>> etc, regardless of opposition from the Hudson development community,
>>> >>>> in
>>> >>>> order to retain the rights to the name.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> In short, we'd be living under a sword of Damocles, regardless of
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> goodwill of the individuals we've been negotiating with at Oracle -
>>> >>>> Hudson
>>> >>>> as a project would be beholden to Oracle's whims for its continued
>>> >>>> use of
>>> >>>> its own name, and we believe that's not viable.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> As I see it, the only viable option facing the project now is to
>>> >>>> rename
>>> >>>> it, in order to free it from the burden of Oracle's ownership of its
>>> >>>> name.
>>> >>>> This is not a first choice, not by a long shot, but I don't see any
>>> >>>> other
>>> >>>> choice available to us that would preserve the integrity of the
>>> >>>> project
>>> >>>> going forward. Oracle will be presenting their proposal for the
>>> >>>> project
>>> >>>> continuing under their umbrella - I encourage you to read it when it
>>> >>>> becomes
>>> >>>> available and weigh it accordingly. I'll just focus on what Kohsuke,
>>> >>>> other
>>> >>>> prominent Hudson community members and I have endorsed.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> First, we rename the project - the choice for a new name is Jenkins,
>>> >>>> which we think evokes the same sort of English butler feel as
>>> >>>> Hudson. We've
>>> >>>> already registered domains, Twitter users, etc for the new name, and
>>> >>>> have
>>> >>>> done our best to verify that there are no existing trademarks which
>>> >>>> would
>>> >>>> conflict with it. Kohsuke will be registering the trademark for
>>> >>>> Jenkins in
>>> >>>> his name, with the intent of transferring ownership of the trademark
>>> >>>> to the
>>> >>>> umbrella of the Software Freedom Conservancy once the Jenkins
>>> >>>> project has
>>> >>>> been admitted to it (which, I should add, is very much our plan,
>>> >>>> hopefully
>>> >>>> in their next round of new projects in a few months - we've already
>>> >>>> had
>>> >>>> preliminary contacts with SFC). We still invite Oracle to remain
>>> >>>> involved
>>> >>>> with the project, on equal terms with all other contributors, and
>>> >>>> hope
>>> >>>> they'll take us up on this invitation.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Second, out of respect for Oracle's trademark claim on Hudson, we
>>> >>>> will
>>> >>>> move our infrastructure off of Oracle-owned and hosted servers, and
>>> >>>> we will
>>> >>>> rename existing independent components of the infrastructure to no
>>> >>>> longer
>>> >>>> use "Hudson" - i.e., mailing lists, Github repos, etc. This would be
>>> >>>> a
>>> >>>> gradual process, obviously.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Third, we will put in place an interim governance board for the
>>> >>>> project,
>>> >>>> consisting of three members - myself, Kohsuke and, if Oracle elects
>>> >>>> to
>>> >>>> remain involved, Winston Prakash, the Oracle engineer working on
>>> >>>> Hudson. The
>>> >>>> interim board members will serve for the next 3-6 months, until the
>>> >>>> governance structure can be nailed down securely enough to hold
>>> >>>> elections
>>> >>>> for the board members.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Obviously, such a move could not be undertaken without the agreement
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> support of the Hudson community. We believe this proposal is the
>>> >>>> best choice
>>> >>>> for the project in the situation it's currently in, but we aren't
>>> >>>> closing
>>> >>>> off discussion, questions, etc, and we encourage your feedback and
>>> >>>> comments.
>>> >>>> If there's anything you need clarified, please ask and we'll do our
>>> >>>> best to
>>> >>>> answer.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Once Oracle's proposal is available later this week (hopefully
>>> >>>> Wednesday, possibly Thursday, from what I've been told), which I
>>> >>>> strongly
>>> >>>> advise you to read and consider, we'll be putting up a poll to
>>> >>>> determine the
>>> >>>> position of the community. Once that vote is done, assuming the
>>> >>>> consensus is
>>> >>>> to rename, we'll put the mechanisms in motion and switch over as
>>> >>>> fast we
>>> >>>> can.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> There may be some confusion as to whether we're proposing to fork
>>> >>>> Hudson, or rename the existing project. I firmly believe we are
>>> >>>> proposing
>>> >>>> the latter - for me, the project's key component is Kohsuke himself.
>>> >>>> If the
>>> >>>> community decides to support renaming the project to Jenkins, and
>>> >>>> Oracle
>>> >>>> chooses to continue development themselves under the name Hudson,
>>> >>>> they are,
>>> >>>> obviously, entirely welcome to do so. But with Kohsuke working on
>>> >>>> Jenkins,
>>> >>>> that's the true home and the future of the project for me,
>>> >>>> regardless of the
>>> >>>> name.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> A.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > slide-o-blog
>>> > http://slide-o-blog.blogspot.com/
>>> >
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: On Hudson's future

Jorg Heymans-4
In reply to this post by asgeirn
<just wanted to get this off my chest>
Does anyone else feel that by choosing 'Jenkins' as product name an opportunity is missed for Hudson to break away from the hobby-butler image and choose a strong and modern brand ? I understand and fully respect the emotional attachment to the butler by the project initiators, but lets be fair it has never been a prominent feature of the whole Hudson 'product' so the association is probably not so relevant for most people.

Anyway i really like the direction Jenkins is going now, moving away from Oracle and all, and wish Kohsuke and Cloudbees all the best !
</chest feels a bit lighter now, thanks !>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re : On Hudson's future

Julien HENRY
I also want to highlight the fact that the name "Jenkins" is not very easy to
pronounce for French people contrary to Hudson (and nobody know anything about
butler). So I second the idea of Jorg: maybe could it be the opportunity to find
a better "commercial" name.

Regards,

Julien

>
>De : Jorg Heymans <[hidden email]>
>À : [hidden email]
>Envoyé le : Mer 19 janvier 2011, 11h 51min 38s
>Objet : Re: On Hudson's future
>
>
><just wanted to get this off my chest>Does anyone else feel that by choosing
>'Jenkins' as product name an opportunity is missed for Hudson to break away from
>
>the hobby-butler image and choose a strong and modern brand ? I understand and
>fully respect the emotional attachment to the butler by the project initiators,

>but lets be fair it has never been a prominent feature of the whole Hudson
>'product' so the association is probably not so relevant for most people.
>
>
>Anyway i really like the direction Jenkins is going now, moving away from Oracle
>
>and all, and wish Kohsuke and Cloudbees all the best !
>
></chest feels a bit lighter now, thanks !>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : On Hudson's future

David Karlsen
wasn't "jenkins" a jms utility api on codehaus at some point in time?

2011/1/19 Julien HENRY <[hidden email]>
I also want to highlight the fact that the name "Jenkins" is not very easy to
pronounce for French people contrary to Hudson (and nobody know anything about
butler). So I second the idea of Jorg: maybe could it be the opportunity to find
a better "commercial" name.

Regards,

Julien

>
>De : Jorg Heymans <[hidden email]>
>À : [hidden email]
>Envoyé le : Mer 19 janvier 2011, 11h 51min 38s
>Objet : Re: On Hudson's future
>
>
><just wanted to get this off my chest>Does anyone else feel that by choosing
>'Jenkins' as product name an opportunity is missed for Hudson to break away from
>
>the hobby-butler image and choose a strong and modern brand ? I understand and
>fully respect the emotional attachment to the butler by the project initiators,

>but lets be fair it has never been a prominent feature of the whole Hudson
>'product' so the association is probably not so relevant for most people.
>
>
>Anyway i really like the direction Jenkins is going now, moving away from Oracle
>
>and all, and wish Kohsuke and Cloudbees all the best !
>
></chest feels a bit lighter now, thanks !>



--
--
David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen

123
Loading...