On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Matthew Foley <ma...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > After writing my note to Eric, I realize that Eli and I are guilty of the > same attempt > to use legal terminology in an engineering context. Craig Russell is > absolutely right. > If you change one bit, it is a "derived work". > > However, we can still allow the trademark to be applied to that work, if it > meets licensing criteria. So what we are arguing about is, "Where is the > boundary > line between something we are willing to call 'Apache Hadoop' and something > that must be called 'Product XYZ Powered by Apache Hadoop'?" > > I'm in favor of a very strict definition. It needs to be really, really > close to a > PMC-approved release. But I'm open to the argument that a small number > of security patches could be necessary for a viable commercial product, > and that shouldn't necessarily prevent it from using the trademark. > > But I suggest we stop focusing on the term "derived work". Note that the > "Defining Apache Hadoop" draft document we are voting on doesn't use > that term.
See the section titled "Derivative Works". The term "derivative work" is used throughout the document. I think you're right that the key point here is not what is and is not a derivative work, but what can be called Hadoop. Seems like the board should have an ASF-wide stance on what can be called Apache X instead of doing this per-project. Thanks, Eli
