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 15:31:35 GMT
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <jrottinghuis@ebay.com>wrote:
> It does make sense to me to distinguish between the case when a company
>> seeks to benefit from using the Hadoop name for their product and the case
>> when a company uses Hadoop internally with some minor patches.
> If they aren't distributing the version that they use, no one will know or
> care if they have patches applied. Eli is just trying to cloud the real
> issue, which is about distributors and what they call
> their derivative works.

I truly don't see distribution as the relevant issue, in particular I
don't see why the definition of what Hadoop should change on whether
or not you distribute it.

> For example: large company creates a game-show playing appliance and
>> explains that they have used Hadoop for some of the learning tasks. Not
>> allowed if they applied more than 3 patches?
> Of course it is allowed. It is only a question of whether you can distribute
> it to others and call it Hadoop.

So you want IBM to call what they run Hadoop, unless they put it up on
a website in which case they can no longer call it Hadoop. What is the


View raw message