If the board does have a stance, I'd love to hear it. That could usefully end this discussion.
Absent that, it seems reasonable for the PMC to make a decision in this area. Each project has different use cases and ecosystems, so it may not be reasonable to expect a one size fits all solution. I see no reason not to make a local proposal, the board can always clarify. On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Eli Collins wrote: > 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
