On Jun 16, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Under default trademark law, those others can distribute HADOOP and
> APACHE HADOOP only if it is a redistribution of *our* HADOOP or APACHE
> HADOOP software. (That's why you can buy Jello Brand gelatin at Safeway.)
> Those trademarks are our names for our software. ASF is the source and
> origin of those software goods. Nobody else can apply those trademarks to
> their own software.
The problem is that a rapidly growing set of companies are distributing products that have never been released by Apache and calling them Hadoop. The rules from HTTPD, as I understand them, are that they allow artifacts to be called HTTPD that are releases plus patches that have been committed. With HTTPD that has a formal specification and a very large compatibility test suite, that works. For Hadoop without a formal specification or test suite, we simply can't handle companies calling things Hadoop that are thousands of patches away from our releases. We are trying to assert that only the Apache releases can be called Hadoop. That seems to be the best way to help the project ensure compatibility and prevent user confusion.
> It will be to our advantage to have HADOOP and APACHE
> HADOOP software better known and widely used throughout the world. For that
> purpose, we should be defining the rules we want to *encourage* third
> parties to follow, not arguing about derivative work analysis or voting on
> whether or not something is a trademark.
I want Hadoop to be used in as many products as possible. Having a FooCo product that is called "FooCo HugeInsights powered by Hadoop" is absolutely great. The question is just whether they can call something Hadoop if it isn't an Apache release.