But "distribution Z includes X" kind of implies the existence of some such that X != Y, Y != empty-set and X+Y = Z, at least in common usage.
Isn't that the same as a non-trunk change? So doesn't this mean that your question reduces to the question of what happens when non-Apache changes are made to an Apache release? And isn't that the definition of a derived work? On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Allen Wittenauer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 13, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > > > On 05/13/2011 07:28 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > >> If it has a modified version of Hadoop (i.e., not an actual Apache > >> release or patches which have never been committed to trunk), are > >> they allowed to say "includes Apache Hadoop"? > > > > No. Those are the two cases we permit. We used to say that it was > > enough for a patch to be in Jira, but Roy clarified last year that > > committed to trunk is a better line, since that means the code has been > > reviewed and accepted by the community. > > > So what do we do about companies that release a product that says > "includes Apache Hadoop" but includes patches that aren't committed to > trunk? > > >
