hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
Date Tue, 17 May 2011 02:52:33 GMT
> 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. [...] A proprietary derivative work with
> most of the guts replaced is not an Apache Hadoop distribution, nor
> a distribution for Apache Hadoop.

IMHO, this is the key issue. Allowing proprietary derivative works that provide Hadoop compatible
APIs to claim they are Hadoop will provoke endless confusion, argument, claim, and counter-claim,
and poison the well for all involved with Apache Hadoop.

Best regards,

    - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)


--- On Mon, 5/16/11, Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com> wrote:

> From: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
> Subject: Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
> To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <general@hadoop.apache.org>
> Cc: "Matthew Foley" <mattf@yahoo-inc.com>
> Date: Monday, May 16, 2011, 6:12 PM
> 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>
> wrote:
> 
> >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>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message