hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Collins <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:11:03 GMT
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.


View raw message