hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Baldeschwieler <eri...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:35:24 GMT
If the board does have a stance, I'd love to hear it.  That could usefully end this discussion.

Absent that, it seems reasonable for the PMC to make a decision in this area.  Each project
has different use cases and ecosystems, so it may not be reasonable to expect a one size fits
all solution.  I see no reason not to make a local proposal, the board can always clarify.

On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Eli Collins wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Matthew Foley <mattf@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> After writing my note to Eric, I realize that Eli and I are guilty of the same attempt
>> to use legal terminology in an engineering context.  Craig Russell is absolutely
right.
>> If you change one bit, it is a "derived work".
>> 
>> However, we can still allow the trademark to be applied to that work, if it
>> meets licensing criteria.  So what we are arguing about is, "Where is the boundary
>> line between something we are willing to call 'Apache Hadoop' and something
>> that must be called 'Product XYZ Powered by Apache Hadoop'?"
>> 
>> I'm in favor of a very strict definition.  It needs to be really, really close to
a
>> PMC-approved release.  But I'm open to the argument that a small number
>> of security patches could be necessary for a viable commercial product,
>> and that shouldn't necessarily prevent it from using the trademark.
>> 
>> But I suggest we stop focusing on the term "derived work".  Note that the
>> "Defining Apache Hadoop" draft document we are voting on doesn't use
>> that term.
> 
> See the section titled "Derivative Works". The term "derivative work"
> is used throughout the document.  I think you're right that the key
> point here is not what is and is not a derivative work, but what can
> be called Hadoop.
> 
> Seems like the board should have an ASF-wide stance on what can be
> called Apache X instead of doing this per-project.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eli


Mime
View raw message