I think the issue is whether a distribution of Spark is so materially
different from OSS that it causes problems for the larger community of
users. There's a legitimate question of whether such a thing can be called
"Apache Spark + changes", as describing it that way becomes meaningfully
inaccurate
Hi, Sean.
"+ patches" or "powered by Apache Spark 3.4.0" is not a problem as you
mentioned. For the record, I also didn't bring up any old story here.
> "Apache Spark 3.4.0 + patches"
However, "including Apache Spark 3.4.0" still causes confusion even in a
different way because of those missing
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 12:01 PM Dongjoon Hyun
wrote:
> 1. For the naming, yes, but the company should use different version
> numbers instead of the exact "3.4.0". As I shared the screenshot in my
> previous email, the company exposes "Apache Spark 3.4.0" exactly because
> they build their distri
Thank you, Sean.
I'll reply as a comment for some areas first.
> I believe releasing "Apache Foo X.Y + patches" is acceptable,
> if it is substantially Apache Foo X.Y.
1. For the naming, yes, but the company should use different version
numbers instead of the exact "3.4.0". As I shared the scre
1/ Regarding naming - I believe releasing "Apache Foo X.Y + patches" is
acceptable, if it is substantially Apache Foo X.Y. This is common practice
for downstream vendors. It's fair nominative use. The principle here is
consumer confusion. Is anyone substantially misled? Here I don't think so.
I kno
Hi, All and Matei (as the Chair of Apache Spark PMC).
Sorry for a long email, I want to share two topics and corresponding action
items.
You can go to "Section 3: Action Items" directly for the conclusion.
### 1. ASF Policy Violation ###
ASF has a rule for "MAY I CALL MY MODIFIED CODE 'APACHE'?
