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 16:05:23 GMT
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Matthew Foley <mattf@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree with what I think you are saying, that
>        * applying a small-number-of-patches that are
>        * for high-severity-bug-fixes, and
>        * have been Apache-Hadoop-committed
> to an Apache Hadoop release should not demote the result to a "derived work".
> However, if so many patches are applied that the result cannot be meaningfully
> correlated with a specific Apache Hadoop release, then it probably has
> become a derived work.

This is one reason why I think the definition of derived work in the
draft of the wiki is way too broad. Something that's nothing like
Hadoop at all but includes a Hadoop jar is given the same label as
something with a single security patch. I think we can come up with a
more useful definition of derived work. If we do that would help us
draw the distinction between:
1. An Apache Hadoop release voted on the PMC, bit-for-bit identical
2. An Apache Hadoop release + backports (eg say per the above
definition of backport)
3. Something that is powered by Hadoop (eg HBase)
4. Something that is not Hadoop nor powered by Hadoop (eg the way tc
Server is not powered by Apache Tomcat)

Note that the current document does not make an exception for security
patches. I and Owen made this suggestion on this thread but the
writeup we are voting on makes no such exception.

> But how do we draw a meaningful line across that big gray area?  That's why I'd like
> see specific text from one of the other projects you cited as an example.

Googling didn't turn up anything in their public archives. This was in
an email exchange I had with Shane several years ago. Hopefully their
PMC can chime in.


View raw message