Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # general - Fwd: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page


Copy link to this message
-
Fwd: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page
Jeff Hammerbacher 2011-06-20, 08:28
Hey,

I'm inclined towards freedom with respect to the use of the trademark. I
personally was drawn towards the Apache 2.0 license because of its more
liberal stance on source code modifications; I worked hard to submit many of
our internal projects at Facebook to the ASF against significant internal
resistance because I felt that the ASF would uphold this ecumenical stance
in the face of corporate interests for control. I'm surprised by the
consensus for complex controls versus promiscuity.

I'm skeptical of any argument that relies on the ignorance of the customer.
When a press release from Company X comes out using the Apache Hadoop name,
that raises awareness for the project. Customers are smart enough to ask
whether Company X make significant contributions to the Apache Hadoop
project, and to discern in what ways the project deviates form the Apache
Hadoop releases.  We need to consider the benefit as well as the harm to the
project when these Apache Hadoop-related projects use the Apache Hadoop
trademark: in this particular case, I believe the benefit exceeds the harm.
If we were shipping pharmaceuticals or food, I'd feel differently. As it
stands, we're shipping software used by highly informed and technical
customers. Let's give them the right to make up their mind, and provide
further encouragement for other companies to pile on the Apache Hadoop name.

Further, enforcing these regulations will require significant manpower. In
my experience, the ASF is run by a small and dedicated staff. I'd prefer if
their energies were directed towards the maintenance of the infrastructure
for hosting and developing projects, as well as the mechanisms for making
projects develop more rapidly. While there is great enthusiasm for drafting
these rules right now, I suspect that sustained enthusiasm for the
enforcement of these rules will prove more difficult to muster.

Lastly, I'd love to learn more about how other prominent open source
projects have approached this issue. If you have any knowledge about how
Linux handled the use of its trademark, please add your thoughts to
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-rules-for-using-the-Linux-trademark-in-a-product-name.
Because Apache Hadoop is a kernel technology, similar to Linux, I suspect
there are many useful lessons to learn. Or at least crazy email threads to
read.

Anyways, that's my version of the "the more, the merrier" argument. I'm
pretty excited to see EMC and IBM show up on our doorstep. I'd be even more
excited to see them contribute code; I suspect that will happen in time, if
we create a welcoming community.

Later,
Jeff

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shane Curcuru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One clarification: I've only had time to review the wiki document for some
terminology updates, and not for the overall content yet.  So from the
trademarks@ point of view, more review is needed before we work on making
this official.

>From the significant amount of discussion in this vote thread, I think it
might be good to have the Hadoop PMC and trademarks@ work on getting a more
organized consensus first, before voting on an updated proposed Hadoop
policy.

- Shane

Owen O'Malley wrote:

> All,
>   Steve Loughran has done some great work on defining what can be called
> Hadoop at http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/**Defining%20Hadoop<http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Defining%20Hadoop><
> http://wiki.apache.org/**hadoop/Defining<http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Defining>Hadoop>. After some cleanup from Noirin and Shane, I think we've got a
> really good base. I'd like a vote to approve the content (at the current
> revision 12) and put the content on our web site.
>
>
> Clearly, I'm +1.
>
> -- Owen
>
+
Andrew Purtell 2011-06-20, 16:39
+
Ted Dunning 2011-06-20, 17:09