On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Owen O'Malley <omal...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep > <jrottingh...@ebay.com>wrote: > > It does make sense to me to distinguish between the case when a company >> seeks to benefit from using the Hadoop name for their product and the case >> when a company uses Hadoop internally with some minor patches. >> > > If they aren't distributing the version that they use, no one will know or > care if they have patches applied. Eli is just trying to cloud the real > issue, which is about distributors and what they call > their derivative works. >
I truly don't see distribution as the relevant issue, in particular I don't see why the definition of what Hadoop should change on whether or not you distribute it. > For example: large company creates a game-show playing appliance and >> explains that they have used Hadoop for some of the learning tasks. Not >> allowed if they applied more than 3 patches? >> > > Of course it is allowed. It is only a question of whether you can distribute > it to others and call it Hadoop. > So you want IBM to call what they run Hadoop, unless they put it up on a website in which case they can no longer call it Hadoop. What is the rationale? Thanks, Eli
