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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
> On trademarks, what about the phrase:  "New distribution for Apache
> Hadoop"?  I've seen that used, and its something that
> replaces most of the stack. [...] A proprietary derivative work with
> most of the guts replaced is not an Apache Hadoop distribution, nor
> a distribution for Apache Hadoop.

IMHO, this is the key issue. Allowing proprietary derivative works that provide Hadoop compatible APIs to claim they are Hadoop will provoke endless confusion, argument, claim, and counter-claim, and poison the well for all involved with Apache Hadoop.

Best regards,

    - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
--- On Mon, 5/16/11, Scott Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Scott Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Matthew Foley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Monday, May 16, 2011, 6:12 PM
> On trademarks, what about the phrase:  "New distribution for Apache
> Hadoop"?  I've seen that used, and its something that replaces most
> of the stack.  I believe "Apache Hadoop" is trademarked in this
> context, even if Hadoop alone isn't. "Compatible with Apache Hadoop"
> is a smaller issue, defining some rough guidelines for various forms
> of compatibility is useful for the community (and reputable vendors),
> abuse of that will at least become obvious.  But "distribution for
> Apache Hadoop" (not too sure what 'for' means here)?  Is there any
> TM protection?  A proprietary derivative work with most of the
> guts replaced is not an Apache Hadoop distribution, nor a
> distribution for Apache Hadoop.
>
> On 5/16/11 5:40 PM, "Segel, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I just checked... TESS said no trademarks for Hadoop.
> >So... what TM protection? :-)
> >
> >You are correct about derivative works. It's a moot
> point as long as the
> >derivative work follows the T&Cs...
> >
> >
> >
> >Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos...
> >
> >Mike Segel
> >
> >On May 16, 2011, at 4:18 PM, "Matthew Foley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> It's important to distinguish between the name
> "Hadoop", which is
> >>protected by trademark law,
> >> and the Hadoop implementation, which is licensed
> as opensource under
> >>copyright law.
> >>
> >> The term "derivative work" is, I believe, only
> relevant under copyright
> >>law, not trademark law.
> >> (N.B., I'm not a lawyer -- and this email is my
> opinion, not my
> >>employer's.)  Since the Apache License
> >> explicitly allows derivative works, I don't think
> it's a useful term
> >>for this discussion.
> >>
> >> However, the ASF, and by delegation the Hadoop
> PMC, has a lot of
> >>control over the name,
> >> and how we allow it to be used, under trademark
> law.  But to keeps our
> >>rights under that
> >> law, we have to enforce the trademark
> consistently.  So it's good that
> >>we're having this discussion,
> >> and it's important to reach a conclusion, document
> it, and enforce it
> >>consistently.
> >>
> >> There are a lot of subtleties; for instance, if I
> recall correctly from
> >>my days with Adobe and
> >> PostScript(R), someone who has not licensed a
> trademark "X" can still
> >>claim "compatible with X"
> >> as long as they ALSO make clear that the product
> is NOT, itself, an
> >>"X".  But you really need
> >> a lawyer to get into that stuff.
> >>
> >> --Matt
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 16, 2011, at 5:00 AM, Segel, Mike wrote:
> >>
> >> But Cloudera's release is a bit murky.
> >>
> >> The math example is a bit flawed...
> >>
> >> X represents the set of stable releases.
> >> Y represents the set of available patches.
> >> C represents the set of Cloudera releases.
> >>
> >> So if C contains a release X(n) plus a set of
> patches that is contained
> >>in Y,
> >> Then does it not have the right to be considered
> Apache Hadoop?
> >> It's my understanding is that any enhancement to