hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Foley <ma...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
Date Tue, 17 May 2011 17:53:07 GMT
> Constructions like, "Acme Foo powered by Apache Bar" are generally permitted...

Hi Doug,
Great document, very typical of company Trademark Policy documents.
It needs to be read in conjunction with the FAQ at
which is where the "powered by" mark usage is authorized.  
The "Apache Project Branding Requirements" for PMCs,
goes into more depth, apparently covering all of what I said in my prior email,
and more.

The FAQ about the "powered by" usage is not a general permission to use 
similar constructions; rather it states 8 prescriptive guidelines for exactly 
how it is okay to use this specific construction.  The first one of those 
requirements is that it can only be used for:
        "products or services that are supersets of the functionality of an Apache 
        product, or services [that] are run atop Apache products"

And this statement of permission in the publicly available FAQ constitutes a license, 
so it is imprecise to say that ASF doesn't license its trademarks. :-)

The Project Branding page authorizes PMCs to develop their own "Powered by <project>"

or "<project> Inside" programs.  Has the Hadoop PMC done so?  Is there a web page 
for that?  Our "PoweredBy" page is only a list of companies and products.

I do need to clarify one thing I said below w.r.t. the "Apache Hadoop" construction.
It's perfectly fine to say "Apache Hadoop" as long as there is NOT ALSO a "Yahoo Hadoop",
a "Cloudera Hadoop", and an "EMC Hadoop".  And indeed such competing usages are 
forbidden by this very fine Trademark Policy document, while mandating the "Apache
Hadoop" usage.


On May 17, 2011, at 6:24 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:


Have you read Apache's trademark policy page?


Apache does not generally license its trademarks.  Constructions like,
"Acme Foo powered by Apache Bar" are generally permitted as they are not
deemed to create confusion about the origin of Bar.



On 05/17/2011 11:19 AM, Matthew Foley wrote:
> TESS only has "registered" trademarks -- that's the kind of trademark you put an "(R)"
next to.
> But you can have an ordinary unregistered trademark -- the kind you put a "tm" next to
> just by claiming it, and then promoting and defending it.
> In the second paragraph of our bylaws<http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html> we
>      The foundation holds the trademark on the name "Hadoop" and copyright on
>      Apache code including the code in the Hadoop codebase.
> In the LICENSE.txt file in our distribution, clause 6 of the Apache License states,
>      6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
>      names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
>      except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
>      origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
> Very important!  This exclusion of trademarks from the opensource license is normal
> and appropriate, precisely because it is the primary tool for preventing confusion and
> fragmentation in an opensource marketplace.
> However, we also have to promote and defend the trademark.  I'll leave it up to the
> lawyers to define exactly what that means, but it does take some effort.  We should
> probably use the "tm" annotation in our logo GIFs and our primary market-facing
> documents (not so much in the code).  Perhaps the PMC or Apache Board can ask some
> of our sponsor organizations to help out with some techdocs and trademark legal review
> assistance.  It's not really a topic for us lay people to argue over, it just wastes
> WRT Scott's comments below, understand that trademark lawyers love to talk about using
> trademarks only as "modifiers", i.e., essentially as adjectives.  We shouldn't say "Chevrolet"
> as a thing, we should say "Chevrolet (tm) cars".  There are many kinds of cars, and "Chevrolet"
> is a mark distinguishing THIS kind of car from the others.  You can't trademark THINGS,
> can only trademark DISTINGUISHING MARKS that differentiate things in the marketplace.
> And it has nothing to do with the underlying technology.
> So here are three statements I believe to be true:
> 1. We should defend against the usage "Apache Hadoop", "Cloudera Hadoop",
> "Yahoo Hadoop", and "EMC Hadoop".  This would imply that Hadoop was a THING,
> and those other words -- all trademarks! -- are the modifiers.  Not acceptable.
> 2. If the PMC chooses to, it is okay to allow usages like "Cloudera distribution of
> Hadoop", "Yahoo distribution of Hadoop", and "EMC distribution of Hadoop", or even
> "powered by Hadoop", "built on Hadoop", "Hadoop inside", or whatever, where
> "Hadoop" is understood to mean "Hadoop distributed computing platform"
> (as opposed to other kinds of distributed computing platform product).
> ALL of those usages are claiming to "be Hadoop" in some sense, so they are
> protected by the trademark on "Hadoop".  Therefore, they can only be used if each
> of those companies obtain a license from Apache to use the Hadoop trademark,
> which should include an agreement about correct use of the mark.  And currently
> they DON'T have such a license, because the Apache License specifically excludes
> trademarks!
> 3. If other companies choose to sell distributed computing platform products that
> are NOT named "Hadoop", but their marketing literature says these products are
> "compatible with Hadoop" while also making clear that they are not Hadoop and
> don't claim to be Hadoop -- we probably can't do anything about it.  Claims of
> compatibility are generally protected for the sake of competition in the marketplace.
> If We-The-Community can come to an agreement about what compatibility means,
> we can build it into the license to use the "Hadoop" trademark (as in #2 above), then
> enforce it with peer pressure and market rejection of non-conforming products (#3).
> But the only real help from the law will be in distinguishing case #2 from case #3.
> --Matt
> "I am not a lawyer, the above is just my opinion, and does not represent the opinion
of my employer."
> On May 16, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Scott Carey wrote:
> On trademarks, what about the phrase:  "New distribution for Apache
> Hadoop"?  I've seen that used, and its something that replaces most of the
> stack.  I believe "Apache Hadoop" is trademarked in this context, even if
> Hadoop alone isn't.
> "Compatible with Apache Hadoop" is a smaller issue, defining some rough
> guidelines for various forms of compatibility is useful for the community
> (and reputable vendors), abuse of that will at least become obvious.  But
> "distribution for Apache Hadoop" (not too sure what 'for' means here)?  Is
> there any TM protection?  A proprietary derivative work with most of the
> guts replaced is not an Apache Hadoop distribution, nor a distribution for
> Apache Hadoop.
> On 5/16/11 5:40 PM, "Segel, Mike" <msegel@navteq.com<mailto:msegel@navteq.com>>
> I just checked... TESS said no trademarks for Hadoop.
> So... what TM protection? :-)
> You are correct about derivative works. It's a moot point as long as the
> derivative work follows the T&Cs...
> Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos...
> Mike Segel
> On May 16, 2011, at 4:18 PM, "Matthew Foley" <mattf@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:mattf@yahoo-inc.com>>
> It's important to distinguish between the name "Hadoop", which is
> protected by trademark law,
> and the Hadoop implementation, which is licensed as opensource under
> copyright law.
> The term "derivative work" is, I believe, only relevant under copyright
> law, not trademark law.
> (N.B., I'm not a lawyer -- and this email is my opinion, not my
> employer's.)  Since the Apache License
> explicitly allows derivative works, I don't think it's a useful term
> for this discussion.
> However, the ASF, and by delegation the Hadoop PMC, has a lot of
> control over the name,
> and how we allow it to be used, under trademark law.  But to keeps our
> rights under that
> law, we have to enforce the trademark consistently.  So it's good that
> we're having this discussion,
> and it's important to reach a conclusion, document it, and enforce it
> consistently.
> There are a lot of subtleties; for instance, if I recall correctly from
> my days with Adobe and
> PostScript(R), someone who has not licensed a trademark "X" can still
> claim "compatible with X"
> as long as they ALSO make clear that the product is NOT, itself, an
> "X".  But you really need
> a lawyer to get into that stuff.
> --Matt
> On May 16, 2011, at 5:00 AM, Segel, Mike wrote:
> But Cloudera's release is a bit murky.
> The math example is a bit flawed...
> X represents the set of stable releases.
> Y represents the set of available patches.
> C represents the set of Cloudera releases.
> So if C contains a release X(n) plus a set of patches that is contained
> in Y,
> Then does it not have the right to be considered Apache Hadoop?
> It's my understanding is that any enhancement to Hadoop is made
> available to Apache and will eventually make it into a later release...
> So while it may not be 'official' release X(z), all of it's components
> are in Apache.
> (note: I'm talking about the core components and not Cloudera's
> additional toolsets that encompass Hadoop.)
> Cloudera is clearly a derivative work.
> And IMHO is the only one which can say ... 'Includes Apache Hadoop'.
> That doesn't mean that others can't, depending on how they implemented
> their changes.
> Based on EMC marketing material, they've done a rip and replace of HDFS.
> So it wouldn't be a superset since it doesn't contain a complete
> subset, but contains code that implements the API... So they can't say
> 'Includes Apache Hadoop',but they can say it's a derivative work based
> on Apache Hadoop and then go on to show how and why, in their opinion
> their product is better.(that's marketing for you...)
> Clearly there are others out there...
> Hadoop on Cassandra as an example...
> Fragmentation of Hadoop will occur. It's inevitable. Too much money is
> on the table...
> But because Apache's licensing is so open, Apache will have a hard time
> controlling derivative works...
> I believe that Steve is incorrect in his assertion concerning potential
> loss of any patent protection. Again Apache's licensing is very open and
> as long as they follow Apache's Ts and Cs, they are covered.
> Note: because I am sending this from my email address at my client, I
> am obliged to say that this email is my opinion and does not reflect on
> the opinion of my client...
> (you know the rest....)
> Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos...
> Mike Segel
> On May 16, 2011, at 6:02 AM, "Steve Loughran"
> <stevel@apache.org<mailto:stevel@apache.org>> wrote:
> On 13/05/11 23:57, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> On May 13, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> But "distribution Z includes X" kind of implies the existence of some
> such
> that X != Y, Y != empty-set and X+Y = Z, at least in common usage.
> Isn't that the same as a non-trunk change?
> So doesn't this mean that your question reduces to the question of what
> happens when non-Apache changes are made to an Apache release?  And
> isn't
> that the definition of a derived work?
> Yup. Which is why I doubt *any* commercial entity can claim "includes
> Apache Hadoop" (including Cloudera).
> but they can claim it is a derivative work, which CDH clearly is,
> (Though if we were to come up with a formal declaration of what a
> derivative work is, we'd have to handle the fact that it is a superset.
> Even worse, you may realise a release is the ordered application of a
> sequence of patches, and if the patches are applied in a different order
> you may end up with a different body of source code...)
> Something that implements the APIs may not be a derivative work,
> depending on how much of the original code is in there. You could look
> at the base classes and interfaces and produce a clean room
> implementation (relying on the notion that interfaces are a list of
> facts and not copyrightable in the US), but whoever does that may
> encounter the issue that Google's donation of the right to use their MR
> patent may not apply to such implementations.
> 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.
> 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.

View raw message