On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 06/24/2011 07:07 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Might it be better to improve the existing Apache trademark policy
page?
When the project is having trouble agreeing, reaching agreement at
the
On Jun 14, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
All,
Steve Loughran has done some great work on defining what can be called
Hadoop at http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Defining%20Hadoop. After some cleanup
from Noirin and Shane, I think we've got a really good base. I'd like a vote
to
On 06/24/2011 10:26 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
Having a clearly stated trademark statement on the website will help
significantly with contacting organizations that are mis-using the
trademark, so I don't want to postpone this too long. Let's discuss
it for a week and then call a new vote if we
On Jun 24, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Might it be better to improve the existing Apache trademark policy page?
When the project is having trouble agreeing, reaching agreement at the
foundation level seems unrealistic. Let's reach a workable solution for Hadoop,
see how it
On 06/24/2011 07:07 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
On Jun 24, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Might it be better to improve the existing Apache trademark policy
page?
When the project is having trouble agreeing, reaching agreement at
the foundation level seems unrealistic.
ASF trademark
I agree with this.
We need to find a middle ground that achieves three aims:
1) Makes it clear that an ASF release of Hadoop is THE APACHE HADOOP. Jeff's
manpower argument actually reinforces this. We need a very testable definition
of what is an Apache Hadoop Release or enforcement will be
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the Defining Hadoop page
To: tradema...@apache.org
Cc: general@hadoop.apache.org
One clarification: I've only had time to review the wiki document for some
terminology updates, and not for the overall content yet. So from
On 17/06/2011 19:17, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:01PM, Steve Loughran wrote:
On 15/06/11 16:58, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:52, Steve Loughranste...@apache.org wrote:
also: banners, stickers and clothing? Can I have T-shirts saying I broke
Hi Jeff,
First, apologies for removing most of your argument for clarity. Readers can
find it in the general@ archives I am sure.
Lastly, I'd love to learn more about how other prominent open source
projects have approached this issue. If you have any knowledge about
how Linux handled the
Great summary Andrew.
I would add one more precipitating factor here. That is the arrival of a
number of products which are very close to the Apache version of Hadoop but
for which there is no good and widely accepted terminology that gives proper
credit to their lineage while making clear the
On 15/06/11 16:58, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:52, Steve Loughranste...@apache.org wrote:
Regarding the vote, I think the discussion here is interesting and should be
finalised before the vote. It's worth resolving the issues.
also: banners, stickers and clothing?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:01PM, Steve Loughran wrote:
On 15/06/11 16:58, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:52, Steve Loughranste...@apache.org wrote:
Regarding the vote, I think the discussion here is interesting and should be
finalised before the vote. It's worth
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:01PM, Steve Loughran wrote:
On 15/06/11 16:58, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:52, Steve Loughranste...@apache.org wrote:
Regarding the vote, I think the discussion here is interesting and should be
finalised before the vote. It's worth
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Ian Holsman had...@holsman.net wrote:
so yes .. even a simple patch makes it derived, because it is different.
...and a dervied work is fine. Nothing inherently wrong with the term
derived. I think the question is can one call it Hadoop? Note I'm *not*
saying
On 16/06/11 07:35, Eric Sammer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Ian Holsmanhad...@holsman.net wrote:
so yes .. even a simple patch makes it derived, because it is different.
...and a dervied work is fine. Nothing inherently wrong with the term
derived. I think the question is can
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Eric Sammer esam...@cloudera.com wrote:
I think the question is can one call it Hadoop? Note I'm *not*
saying Apache Hadoop, just Hadoop when the derived work is actually
derived (to any degree, as Craig R pointed out). Apache Hadoop always and
forever means
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.comwrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Eric Sammer esam...@cloudera.com wrote:
I think the question is can one call it Hadoop? Note I'm *not*
saying Apache Hadoop, just Hadoop when the derived work is actually
derived (to any
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Matthew Foley ma...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
I tend to agree with what I think you are saying, that
* applying a small-number-of-patches that are
* for high-severity-bug-fixes, and
* have been Apache-Hadoop-committed
to an Apache Hadoop
Hi Eric,
sorry, but drawing a distinction between Hadoop and Apache Hadoop cannot be
done, under general trademark usage nor the Apache Trademark Policy. Trademark
usage is a specialized language just like a programming language, and that
usage violates the intended semantics of the trademark.
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
lists.
-Original Message-
From: Eli Collins [mailto:e...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:05 AM
To: Matthew Foley
Cc: general@hadoop.apache.org; tradema...@apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the Defining Hadoop page
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Matthew
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
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
On 15/06/11 00:35, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
A minor nit: I'd like to see some cleanup between the first paragraph and the
fourth paragraph in compatibility. Or was the re-iteration of our not a standards
committee intentional? It is sort of awkward as it is currently written.
well
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:52, Steve Loughran ste...@apache.org wrote:
On 15/06/11 03:51, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 19:46, Allen Wittenauera...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Are we really going to go after all the web companies
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Are we really going to go after all the web companies that patch in an
enhancement to their current Hadoop build and tell them to stop saying
that they are using Hadoop?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Wrt derivative works, it's not clear from the document, but I think we
should explicitly adopt the policy of HTTPD and Subversion that
backported patches from trunk and
On 15/06/11 17:23, Eli Collins wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Allen Wittenauera...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Are we really going to go after all the web companies that patch in an
enhancement to their current Hadoop build and tell them to stop
Eli, you said:
Putting a build of Hadoop that has 4 security patches applied into the same
category as a product that has entirely re-worked the code and not
gotten it checked into trunk does a major disservice to the people who
contribute to and invest in the project.
How would you phrase
Oh, and while I can't officially vote, I think this page is extremely well done
and
I strongly support it.
As an editorial note, however, I would remove the last paragraph in the
Compatibility
section, referencing the email thread (that I contributed to at length :-) ).
That thread went
+1 to what Eli says. If nobody is running official Hadoop according to this
definition, but everybody thinks that they are running hadoop, then this
definition is a bit out of whack. The source of the dissonance is related
to the fact that release just don't happen often enough in Hadoop.
In
On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
I've spoken with ops teams at many companies, I am not aware of
anyone who runs an official release (with just 2 security patches). By
this definition many of the most valuable contributors to Hadoop,
including Yahoo!, Cloudera, Facebook, etc
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
I've spoken with ops teams at many companies, I am not aware of
anyone who runs an official release (with just 2 security patches). By
this definition many of the most
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
But Yahoo! hasn't. According to this wiki YDH (0.20.100) would *not*
be considered Apache Hadoop. For example see HADOOP-6962 which refers
to 0.20.9,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Foley ma...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Eli, you said:
Putting a build of Hadoop that has 4 security patches applied into the same
category as a product that has entirely re-worked the code and not
gotten it checked into trunk does a major disservice to the
I tend to agree with what I think you are saying, that
* applying a small-number-of-patches that are
* for high-severity-bug-fixes, and
* have been Apache-Hadoop-committed
to an Apache Hadoop release should not demote the result to a derived work.
However, if so many
So to second a point here.
We are not saying you can't patch your distribution, add your own features,
share it with your friends, or do whatever you want to the code.
all we're saying is that you can't call that 'Apache Hadoop'.
On Jun 16, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi
it be Hadoop if used internally and not sold/marketted as a
product?
Cheers,
Joep
From: Eli Collins [e...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:23 AM
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: Apache Brand Management
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Craig L Russell
craig.russ...@oracle.comwrote:
There's no ambiguity. Either you ship the bits that the Apache PMC has
voted on as a release, or you change it (one bit) and it is no longer what
the PMC has voted on. It's a derived work.
The rules for voting in
On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Craig L Russell
craig.russ...@oracle.comwrote:
There's no ambiguity. Either you ship the bits that the Apache PMC has
voted on as a release, or you change it (one bit) and it is no longer what
the PMC has
On Jun 14, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
All,
Steve Loughran has done some great work on defining what can be called
Hadoop at http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Defining%20Hadoop. After some cleanup
from Noirin and Shane, I think we've got a really good base. I'd like a vote
to
+1.
great job Steve!
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
All,
Steve Loughran has done some great work on defining what can be called
Hadoop at http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Defining%20Hadoop. After some cleanup
from Noirin and Shane, I think we've got a really good base.
+1 - makes sense!
--
Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote:
All,
Steve Loughran has done some great work on defining what can be called
Hadoop at http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Defining%20Hadoop. After some cleanup
from Noirin and Shane, I think we've got a really good base.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote:
All,
Steve Loughran has done some great work on defining what can be called
Hadoop at http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Defining%20Hadoop. After some cleanup
from Noirin and Shane, I think we've got a really good base.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
In short, an Apache Hadoop release with a backport of PMC approved
code or critical security fix is not powered by Hadoop, it is Hadoop,
while a new product that contains
On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Wrt derivative works, it's not clear from the document, but I think we
should explicitly adopt the policy of HTTPD and Subversion that
backported patches from trunk and security fixes are permitted.
Actually, the document is extremely clear
On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Are we really going to go after all the web companies that patch in an
enhancement to their current Hadoop build and tell them to stop saying
that they are using Hadoop? You've patched Hadoop many times, should
your employer not be able to say
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 19:46, Allen Wittenauer a...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Are we really going to go after all the web companies that patch in an
enhancement to their current Hadoop build and tell them to stop saying
that they are using Hadoop?
50 matches
Mail list logo
