hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: Trademarks and Derivative Works
Date Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:30:14 GMT
(Apologies; I'm on the way to a family memorial service, so I don't have 
time for a complete answer here, although this is an important issue for 
trademarks@)

I certainly appreciate the work that the Hadoop PMC has been doing in 
terms of better defining the kinds of use cases for Hadoop derivatives 
or related kinds of software!  The pre-existing "Powered By" metaphor 
from httpd is a great model, and one that allows for strong independent 
branding by third parties while still allowing for use of Apache marks 
within third party names, with a clear separation.

However the phrase "Powered by" does not fit many uses of software like 
Hadoop, so we need both some alternate naming styles, as well as some 
better definitions of  models of third party uses; derivatives with 
additional code, integrations with other products, uses of Apache 
software as services, etc.  I've always wanted to create a generic list 
of other phrases to use instead of "Powered By" that we would list as a 
policy of pre-approved uses for these kind of cases.

I'd like to see more discussion from the PMC, because Hadoop in 
particular is a key technology that's being used in a wide variety of 
ways - really defining a new computing model.  However I think we really 
need to take this input and then have trademarks@ work on an Apache-wide 
policy for approved third party product and services naming styles for 
all Apache products.  Obviously, some of the specific types of uses of 
Hadoop may not be applicable to other Apache products, but in general I 
think working on a larger set of guidelines that apply would be the best 
way to approach this situation for all Apache projects.

Overall, trademarks@ and VP, Brand Management set branding policy for 
all Apache projects.  But we definitely need the combined input of both 
folks on Hadoop - with so many new and innovative uses of our software - 
plus the input of some of our longer-running projects like httpd and 
Tomcat, with experience in *nix-style packaging and the like, to come up 
with the best policy for these kind of third party uses of our product 
marks.

- Shane Curcuru
   VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation

Segel, Mike wrote:
> Owen, From your response below you say the following: "We are trying
> to assert that only the Apache releases can be called Hadoop. That
> seems to be the best way to help the project ensure compatibility and
> prevent user confusion." and " I want Hadoop to be used in as many
> products as possible. Having a FooCo product that is called "FooCo
> HugeInsights powered by Hadoop" is absolutely great. The question is
> just whether they can call something Hadoop if it isn't an Apache
> release.
> 
> -- Owen"
> 
> Owen, Unfortunately what you're saying is that you would only approve
> of companies that build their products on top of Apache's release and
> doesn't modify the Apache release. To give you an example... if  Acme
> Risk Management Company sold a product using Hadoop to do risk
> analysis on a bank's portfolio, they can only say "powered by Hadoop"
> if they build their application on top of Apache's release. But the
> minute they build their solution on top of anyone else, they would
> lose that right? So using Cloudera's release, which contains things
> outside of the official Apache release would disallow them?  Or if
> they make their own modifications to the underlying release which
> isn't part of the official release, they could no longer make that
> claim?
> 
> This interpretation of  "powered by Hadoop" would unfortunately lead
> to as many problems as it attempts to solve. First, many choose
> Cloudera's release because they sell commercial support. So in
> choosing Cloudera's release, they would lose the ability to say
> "powered by Hadoop". This diminishes the branding message.
> 
> The Apache License allows for broad reuse and relicensing as long as
> the company complies with Apache's T's & C's.  Limiting the ability
> to say "powered by Hadoop" means that they will say that their
> solution uses a commercially supported  'derivative of Hadoop'. In
> terms of legalese, good luck in trying to get them on a misuse of
> your trademark.  Cloudera, EMC, MapRTech, Datastax all offer
> derivatives of Hadoop. (I'm not forgetting about Yahoo!, but are they
> releasing their own version as well?) The term Hadoop is used as a
> reference to Apache's Hadoop release.
> 
> I hope that you start to see the dangers on taking a narrow approach
> in how you define Hadoop.
> 
> Just IMHO.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Owen O'Malley
> [mailto:omalley@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 1:32 PM To:
> general@hadoop.apache.org Cc: trademarks@apache.org Subject: Re:
> Trademarks and Derivative Works
> 
> 
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 
>> Under default trademark law, those others can distribute HADOOP and
>>  APACHE HADOOP only if it is a redistribution of *our* HADOOP or
>> APACHE HADOOP software. (That's why you can buy Jello Brand gelatin
>> at Safeway.) Those trademarks are our names for our software. ASF
>> is the source and origin of those software goods. Nobody else can
>> apply those trademarks to their own software.
> 
> The problem is that a rapidly growing set of companies are
> distributing products that have never been released by Apache and
> calling them Hadoop. The rules from HTTPD, as I understand them, are
> that they allow artifacts to be called HTTPD that are releases plus
> patches that have been committed. With HTTPD that has a formal
> specification and a very large compatibility test suite, that works.
> For Hadoop without a formal specification or test suite, we simply
> can't handle companies calling things Hadoop that are thousands of
> patches away from our releases. We are trying to assert that only the
> Apache releases can be called Hadoop. That seems to be the best way
> to help the project ensure compatibility and prevent user confusion.
> 
>> It will be to our advantage to have HADOOP and APACHE HADOOP
>> software better known and widely used throughout the world. For
>> that purpose, we should be defining the rules we want to
>> *encourage* third parties to follow, not arguing about derivative
>> work analysis or voting on whether or not something is a trademark.
>> 
> 
> I want Hadoop to be used in as many products as possible. Having a
> FooCo product that is called "FooCo HugeInsights powered by Hadoop"
> is absolutely great. The question is just whether they can call
> something Hadoop if it isn't an Apache release.
> 
> -- Owen
> 
> 
> 
> 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