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 copyri=
ght 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 th=
is discussion.
However, the ASF, and by delegation the Hadoop PMC, has a lot of control ov=
er the name,
and how we allow it to be used, under trademark law. But to keep our right=
s under that
law, we have to enforce the trademark consistently. So it's good that we'r=
e having this discussion,
and it's important to reach a conclusion, document it, and enforce it consi=
stently.
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". B=
ut 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 t=
o 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 thei=
r 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, bu=
t contains code that implements the API... So they can't say 'Includes Apac=
he Hadoop',but they can say it's a derivative work based on Apache Hadoop a=
nd 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 t=
he table...
But because Apache's licensing is so open, Apache will have a hard time con=
trolling derivative works...
I believe that Steve is incorrect in his assertion concerning potential los=
s of any patent protection. Again Apache's licensing is very open and as lo=
ng 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 ob=
liged to say that this email is my opinion and does not reflect on the opin=
ion 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:ste=
vel@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 !=3D Y, Y !=3D empty-set and X+Y =3D 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 Apa=
che 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, dis=
tribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is str=
ictly 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.
|