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-

Have you read Apache's trademark policy page?


Apache does not generally license its trademarks.  Constructions like,
"Acme Foo powered by Apache Bar" are generally permitted as they are not
deemed to create confusion about the origin of Bar.



On 05/17/2011 11:19 AM, Matthew Foley wrote:
> TESS only has "registered" trademarks -- that's the kind of trademark you put an "(R)" next to.
> But you can have an ordinary unregistered trademark -- the kind you put a "tm" next to --
> just by claiming it, and then promoting and defending it.
> In the second paragraph of our bylaws<http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html> we claim:
>       The foundation holds the trademark on the name "Hadoop" and copyright on
>       Apache code including the code in the Hadoop codebase.
> In the LICENSE.txt file in our distribution, clause 6 of the Apache License states,
>       6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
>       names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
>       except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
>       origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
> Very important!  This exclusion of trademarks from the opensource license is normal
> and appropriate, precisely because it is the primary tool for preventing confusion and
> fragmentation in an opensource marketplace.
> However, we also have to promote and defend the trademark.  I'll leave it up to the
> lawyers to define exactly what that means, but it does take some effort.  We should
> probably use the "tm" annotation in our logo GIFs and our primary market-facing
> documents (not so much in the code).  Perhaps the PMC or Apache Board can ask some
> of our sponsor organizations to help out with some techdocs and trademark legal review
> assistance.  It's not really a topic for us lay people to argue over, it just wastes time.
> WRT Scott's comments below, understand that trademark lawyers love to talk about using
> trademarks only as "modifiers", i.e., essentially as adjectives.  We shouldn't say "Chevrolet"
> as a thing, we should say "Chevrolet (tm) cars".  There are many kinds of cars, and "Chevrolet"
> is a mark distinguishing THIS kind of car from the others.  You can't trademark THINGS, you
> can only trademark DISTINGUISHING MARKS that differentiate things in the marketplace.
> And it has nothing to do with the underlying technology.
> So here are three statements I believe to be true:
> 1. We should defend against the usage "Apache Hadoop", "Cloudera Hadoop",
> "Yahoo Hadoop", and "EMC Hadoop".  This would imply that Hadoop was a THING,
> and those other words -- all trademarks! -- are the modifiers.  Not acceptable.
> 2. If the PMC chooses to, it is okay to allow usages like "Cloudera distribution of
> Hadoop", "Yahoo distribution of Hadoop", and "EMC distribution of Hadoop", or even
> "powered by Hadoop", "built on Hadoop", "Hadoop inside", or whatever, where
> "Hadoop" is understood to mean "Hadoop distributed computing platform"
> (as opposed to other kinds of distributed computing platform product).
> ALL of those usages are claiming to "be Hadoop" in some sense, so they are
> protected by the trademark on "Hadoop".  Therefore, they can only be used if each
> of those companies obtain a license from Apache to use the Hadoop trademark,
> which should include an agreement about correct use of the mark.  And currently
> they DON'T have such a license, because the Apache License specifically excludes
> trademarks!
> 3. If other companies choose to sell distributed computing platform products that
> are NOT named "Hadoop", but their marketing literature says these products are
> "compatible with Hadoop" while also making clear that they are not Hadoop and
> don't claim to be Hadoop -- we probably can't do anything about it.  Claims of
> compatibility are generally protected for the sake of competition in the marketplace.