hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <tdunn...@maprtech.com>
Subject Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
Date Fri, 13 May 2011 22:53:48 GMT
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?

 On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@apache.org> wrote:

> On May 13, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> > On 05/13/2011 07:28 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> >> If it has a modified version of Hadoop (i.e., not an actual Apache
> >> release or patches which have never been committed to trunk), are
> >> they allowed to say "includes Apache Hadoop"?
> >
> > No.  Those are the two cases we permit.  We used to say that it was
> > enough for a patch to be in Jira, but Roy clarified last year that
> > committed to trunk is a better line, since that means the code has been
> > reviewed and accepted by the community.
>        So what do we do about companies that release a product that says
> "includes Apache Hadoop" but includes patches that aren't committed to
> trunk?

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