hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Segel, Mike" <mse...@navteq.com>
Subject Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
Date Thu, 12 May 2011 09:49:08 GMT
While IANAL...

As long as any implementation follows Apache's license regarding derivative works, it's fair
game.  (this is my understanding YMMV)

The APL is very liberal in what one can do with a derivative work...

Surely Apache has some lawyers who can summarize what is allowable when talking about a derivative
work and what is not?

Note these are my opinions only and do not reflect the opinions of anyone else. Any resemblance
to a coherent thought is pure coincidence.....


Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos...

Mike Segel

On May 12, 2011, at 4:33 AM, "Steve Loughran" <stevel@apache.org<mailto:stevel@apache.org>>
wrote:


   (b) wider choice of Hadoop implementations by freeing them from vendor
lock-in.

=0

They won't be hadoop implementations, they will be "something that is
compatible with the Apache Hadoop API as defined in v 0.x of the Hadoop
compatibility kit". Furthermore, there's the issue of any google patents
-while google have given Hadoop permission to them, that may not apply
to other things that implement compatible APIs.




The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of
its contents, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer
or paper files.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message