Mailing List Archive

On Sat, 22 Apr 1995, Cliff Skolnick wrote:
> On Apr 22, 9:06pm, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> } Subject: The political correctness question...
> } Since the political correctness question has been raised on www-talk,
> } I was tempted to respond, but tired enough to think better of it 'til
> } I've thought it over. What does anybody think of this as a response:
> }
> }
> } When we named the Apache server, we were aware this issue might arise.
> } We mean no offense, of course, and if any authorized representative of
> } the Apache Nation asks us to change the name, we certainly will.
>
> How about "the potential that this name might offend the Apache
> Nation arose, and it was concluded that if an authorized representative
> of ...."
>
> I think yours sounds more like, "ya we didn't care at the time, but
> hey what the hell it's ok cause we will change it". I'd rather see
> "we thought about it, realized we were not qualified to judge, but
> of course all agreed if it was really offensive we would certainly
> stop."

I dunno, I'm much less interested in being conciliatory on this point.
Despite having gone to college in Berkeley for three years and being a
registered democrat, I think there is a lot of bs that goes around in the
name of cultural sensitivity. I think naming a product "Lee Harvey
Oswald" might be insensitive, or naming a song "Big Blast on a Sunny
Morning in Oklahoma City", but I dunno that the specific complaint even
merits a response. If it does, I wouldn't be too acerbic, but I wouldn't
explicitely offer to change the name either. We could say we'd change it
as soon as Ford stops making "Cherokee" trucks and Geffen drops "Siouxsie
and the Banshees".... perhaps a better response would be that Hyperreal
would love to be a home for any pro-Native-American-rights group on the
Internet, and I'd certainly be willing to offer an account or two if it
quells the situation. Of course, if the Apache Nation asks for
apache.org, and they don't want or can't get apache.gov, then that's
another situation. But if we change the name to "Ninja", will the Asian
American community complain?

Ugh. Someone else can do the official response, I'll stay quiet on this
one. I feel my diplomacy skills slipping again! :) Remember why we named
it - "A PATCHY SERVER".

Brian



--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

On Sat, 22 Apr 1995, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> Hmmm... the way I phrased it was that if an authorized representative of
> the Apache nation asked us to change the name, we would (with a recommendation
> that they make the same request of all the other Apache-foos out there).
> If an official representative of the Apache nation does come calling (not
> that I expect that to happen), and does ask us to change the name, could
> we really refuse?

I suppose not. I suppose we could always change the name to "Custer" or
something :):) (JUST KIDDING!)

I wonder if Rob McCool has gotten permission from the NetSite Indians...

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

On Apr 22, 9:06pm, Robert S. Thau wrote:
} Subject: The political correctness question...
} Since the political correctness question has been raised on www-talk,
} I was tempted to respond, but tired enough to think better of it 'til
} I've thought it over. What does anybody think of this as a response:
}
}
} When we named the Apache server, we were aware this issue might arise.
} We mean no offense, of course, and if any authorized representative of
} the Apache Nation asks us to change the name, we certainly will.

How about "the potential that this name might offend the Apache
Nation arose, and it was concluded that if an authorized representative
of ...."

I think yours sounds more like, "ya we didn't care at the time, but
hey what the hell it's ok cause we will change it". I'd rather see
"we thought about it, realized we were not qualified to judge, but
of course all agreed if it was really offensive we would certainly
stop."

}
} At the same time, we hope we are treated no more harshly than the
} other people who are also using the name...

Hmm....how about. "We are aware of other using the name for various
products, and were not aware of any severe problems. Certainly
it s our hope this will not cause any"

}
} [whois list]
}
}
}
}
} Feel free to shoot this response down in flames... I'm kinda tuckered
} out, and I wouldn't be suprized at all if there's something wrong with
} it.

Your intent was 100% on the mark.

}
} rst
}-- End of excerpt from Robert S. Thau

Hmmm... the way I phrased it was that if an authorized representative of
the Apache nation asked us to change the name, we would (with a recommendation
that they make the same request of all the other Apache-foos out there).
If an official representative of the Apache nation does come calling (not
that I expect that to happen), and does ask us to change the name, could
we really refuse?

That said, Brian's offer of web space for native-American-related pages
is certainly a good idea, and might help to smooth things over...

rst

From: cliffs@steam.com (Cliff Skolnick)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 18:54:30 PST

How about "the potential that this name might offend the Apache
Nation arose, and it was concluded that if an authorized representative
of ...."

Well, I'd prefer "we decided" (stamp out passives!), but sure.

} At the same time, we hope we are treated no more harshly than the
} other people who are also using the name...

Hmm....how about. "We are aware of other using the name for various
products, and were not aware of any severe problems. Certainly
it s our hope this will not cause any"

Ummm... this might be paraphrased (in your earlier style) as "there
are plenty of other jerks as boorish as we are, so go bitch at them
and leave us alone" --- the "treated no more harshly" business is an
attempt to evade this paraphrase, though I'll grant that I may have
gone overboard...

Anyway, we should probably respond to this *somehow* Sunday.

Your intent was 100% on the mark.

Thanks.

rst [exit, stage left...]

> All right, here's another draft (which has seen a *little* more
> work...)...
>

This all looks fine. I share Brian's view on this. ie. There was
no malicious intent. Give us a good reason to drop it.

I'd be happy to help with the website offering if that ever becomes
an issue.

-Randy

> Incidentally, folks might want to look at www.apache.com --- there's
> an example of how to do it *wrong*. Oy.
>
> rst

:-) We have nothing to worry about. These guys are prime targets
for every ethnic group on the web...

All right, here's another draft (which has seen a *little* more
work...)...




[quoted text]... has been consulted.

Well, it's not just us (a "whois apache" finds all sorts of people),
but this is an issue, and it's one we've discussed. The bottom line
for us was whether, say, the Jewish members of the group would be
deeply offended by another piece of software named, say, Torah,
Israel, Talmud, Mitzvah, or whatever --- and, provided there was
nothing deeply offensive about the way it was presented, we wouldn't.
(What sort of Jewish name is "Thau", you ask? Let's just say Ellis
Island was a pretty weird place).

Of course, it's entirely possible that the real Apaches are more
sensitive to this sort of thing than we are, and if so, we'll change
it --- but we really would prefer to hear it from the Apaches
themselves. We really don't mean to offend.

(BTW, there already is a fair amount of native American related
information on the Web --- see Yahoo for a good list of starting
points (yes, they have *everything*) --- but if some worthy Amerind
organization needs a little Web space, and this goes particularly for
the Apache Nation of course, we may be able to help).

rst

Incidentally, folks might want to look at www.apache.com --- there's
an example of how to do it *wrong*. Oy.

rst

> Since the political correctness question has been raised on www-talk,
> I was tempted to respond, but tired enough to think better of it 'til
> I've thought it over. What does anybody think of this as a response:

I read the www-talk article and replied to it before seeing this.

Ooops.

I did look for the same subject in later articles, before speaking
though.

On Sun, 23 Apr 1995, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> Incidentally, folks might want to look at www.apache.com --- there's
> an example of how to do it *wrong*. Oy.

D'OH!

Covered wagons... sheesh...

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

On Sun, 23 Apr 1995, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> Incidentally, folks might want to look at www.apache.com --- there's
> an example of how to do it *wrong*. Oy.

Man, it gets worse:

About Apache Digital

Apache Digital Corporation is formed as a tool to be used by God to be a
blessing to people, and to support the spread of the gospel of Jesus
Christ to all the nations of the earth. It is to be operated on the
principles of God as laid out in the Bible. We have faith that Jehovah
Jireh, the Lord our Provider, is more than capable of supplying all our
needs; that Jehovah Nissi, the Lord our Victory, will fight all our
battles for us; that Jehovah Shalom, the Lord our Peace, will shoulder all
of the burdens and pressures of daily operation; and that we will find
favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man.

I mean "worse" not as in "isn't this awful" but as in "what would the
Apache Nation think".

Brian, potentially agnostic

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

> Rob --- what did you say?

Something along the lines of, we'd thought about the name problem,
but decided it wasn't something to worry about since Apache wasn't
going to exploit the name for profit. Also, I said that (the original
poster) suggesting that the Apache people will be more sensitive than
other people might be worse than using their name anyway.

I said that if we'd called it "The English/Welsh/French etc" server then
those nations wouldn't be offended, so why should the Apache ?

I think I was polite ;-)

>(NB I haven't seen any replies at all to the
> original question on www-talk; if we're lucky, you just responded to the
> original poster...).

this is your lucky day !, not.


robh

I'm all for this PC stuff, as long as it excludes me.

rob

> So Rob, one again, what did you say on www-talk? (I still haven't seen
> it here, and I would like to know).

I thought I sent a reply to the apache list.

I've deleted the entire thread here so I can't check.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

What did you say?

rst

Rob --- what did you say? (NB I haven't seen any replies at all to the
original question on www-talk; if we're lucky, you just responded to the
original poster...).

rst

So Rob, one again, what did you say on www-talk? (I still haven't seen
it here, and I would like to know).

rst

> BTW the fact that the product is free also really has no bearing,
> other than to say you can't get money by suing us.

Isn't it just a name like any other ?

Wouldn't they have to get it registered as a trademark to have any
legal ownership, and hence control over its use ?

On Apr 23, 12:00pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
} About Apache Digital
}
} Apache Digital Corporation is formed as a tool to be used by God to be a
} blessing to people, and to support the spread of the gospel of Jesus
} Christ to all the nations of the earth. It is to be operated on the
} principles of God as laid out in the Bible. We have faith that Jehovah
} Jireh, the Lord our Provider, is more than capable of supplying all our
} needs; that Jehovah Nissi, the Lord our Victory, will fight all our
} battles for us; that Jehovah Shalom, the Lord our Peace, will shoulder all
} of the burdens and pressures of daily operation; and that we will find
} favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
}
} I mean "worse" not as in "isn't this awful" but as in "what would the
} Apache Nation think".
}
}-- End of excerpt from Brian Behlendorf

You know, it is quite possible that the company is run by Apaches.
In that case, there would be no problem. It appeard the registration
was done by a provider, so there is no hint about who the "real"
owner is beside their Organization name. No wasy to tell. Needless
to say I won't be back there.

Their web site sucks, but so do many others, and their existance
does not validate or invalidate the use of the name Apache. I think
a statement like rst's should be made, I'm not saying we cave in when
the first person complains, but I'd like to at least tell people
that yes we are aware of the potential problems and never had
any wish to offend.

BTW the fact that the product is free also really has no bearing,
other than to say you can't get money by suing us.

Cliff

Well, www19.w3.org, the www-talk listserver, is down (presumably until
Monday, when Bruno will come in and reboot it), so no one's going to see
Rob's reply until then. (It may still be sitting in lanl's outgoing mail
spool). In the meantime, I worry by nature.

rst

>
> Mmm,
>
> 0.6.2's Makefile still carries:
>
> CFLAGS= -g -DMULTI_ADDRESS_BIND -DVIRTUAL_HOST
>
> as the default behaviour. This is almost certainly not a good idea.
> I thought someone'd changed that line?
>
> Can we go back to 1.3R's default:
>
> CFLAGS= -g -O2
>
> Ay.
>

I believe that the defaults are as you expect in the new Makefile
which has not been integrated yet.

From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 95 14:56:18 MDT

> BTW the fact that the product is free also really has no bearing,
> other than to say you can't get money by suing us.

Isn't it just a name like any other ?

Wouldn't they have to get it registered as a trademark to have any
legal ownership, and hence control over its use ?

I wouldn't be surprised if they had --- but if so, they probably would
have trademarked "Apache Digital", rather than just "Apache".

rst

> >
> > Can we go back to 1.3R's default:
> >
> > CFLAGS= -g -O2
> >
> > Ay.
> >

shall I make a 0.6.2.1 ?

I could change CFLAGS to the above and throw in the
new Makefile as Makefile.new


thoughts ?