My understanding is that a history if defending your trade mark is more important than registration. Apache does defend Hadoop.
--- E14 - typing on glass On May 16, 2011, at 6:52 PM, "Segel, Mike" <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me clarify... > I searched on Hadoop as a term in any TM. > Nothing came back... > > This means that Apache Hadoop didn't show up. > > Note the following: I did the basic search. I wouldn't be surprised that > someone from Apache comes back and says see TM xxxxxxxx ... > > -Mike > > Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos... > > Mike Segel > > On May 16, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Scott Carey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On trademarks, what about the phrase: "New distribution for Apache >> Hadoop"? I've seen that used, and its something that replaces most of the >> stack. I believe "Apache Hadoop" is trademarked in this context, even if >> Hadoop alone isn't. >> "Compatible with Apache Hadoop" is a smaller issue, defining some rough >> guidelines for various forms of compatibility is useful for the community >> (and reputable vendors), abuse of that will at least become obvious. But >> "distribution for Apache Hadoop" (not too sure what 'for' means here)? Is >> there any TM protection? A proprietary derivative work with most of the >> guts replaced is not an Apache Hadoop distribution, nor a distribution for >> Apache Hadoop. >> >> On 5/16/11 5:40 PM, "Segel, Mike" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I just checked... TESS said no trademarks for Hadoop. >>> So... what TM protection? :-) >>> >>> You are correct about derivative works. It's a moot point as long as the >>> derivative work follows the T&Cs... >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos... >>> >>> Mike Segel >>> >>> On May 16, 2011, at 4:18 PM, "Matthew Foley" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> It's important to distinguish between the name "Hadoop", which is >>>> protected by trademark law, >>>> and the Hadoop implementation, which is licensed as opensource under >>>> copyright law. >>>> >>>> The term "derivative work" is, I believe, only relevant under copyright >>>> law, not trademark law. >>>> (N.B., I'm not a lawyer -- and this email is my opinion, not my >>>> employer's.) Since the Apache License >>>> explicitly allows derivative works, I don't think it's a useful term >>>> for this discussion. >>>> >>>> However, the ASF, and by delegation the Hadoop PMC, has a lot of >>>> control over the name, >>>> and how we allow it to be used, under trademark law. But to keeps our >>>> rights under that >>>> law, we have to enforce the trademark consistently. So it's good that >>>> we're having this discussion, >>>> and it's important to reach a conclusion, document it, and enforce it >>>> consistently. >>>> >>>> There are a lot of subtleties; for instance, if I recall correctly from >>>> my days with Adobe and >>>> PostScript(R), someone who has not licensed a trademark "X" can still >>>> claim "compatible with X" >>>> as long as they ALSO make clear that the product is NOT, itself, an >>>> "X". But you really need >>>> a lawyer to get into that stuff. >>>> >>>> --Matt >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 16, 2011, at 5:00 AM, Segel, Mike wrote: >>>> >>>> But Cloudera's release is a bit murky. >>>> >>>> The math example is a bit flawed... >>>> >>>> X represents the set of stable releases. >>>> Y represents the set of available patches. >>>> C represents the set of Cloudera releases. >>>> >>>> So if C contains a release X(n) plus a set of patches that is contained >>>> in Y, >>>> Then does it not have the right to be considered Apache Hadoop? >>>> It's my understanding is that any enhancement to Hadoop is made >>>> available to Apache and will eventually make it into a later release... >>>> >>>> So while it may not be 'official' release X(z), all of it's components >>>> are in Apache. >>>> (note: I'm talking about the core components and not Cloudera's >>>> additional toolsets that encompass Hadoop.) >>>> >>>> Cloudera is clearly a derivative work. >>>> And IMHO is the only one which can say ... 'Includes Apache Hadoop'. >>>> >>>> That doesn't mean that others can't, depending on how they implemented >>>> their changes. >>>> Based on EMC marketing material, they've done a rip and replace of HDFS. >>>> So it wouldn't be a superset since it doesn't contain a complete >>>> subset, but contains code that implements the API... So they can't say >>>> 'Includes Apache Hadoop',but they can say it's a derivative work based >>>> on Apache Hadoop and then go on to show how and why, in their opinion >>>> their product is better.(that's marketing for you...) >>>> >>>> Clearly there are others out there... >>>> Hadoop on Cassandra as an example... >>>> >>>> Fragmentation of Hadoop will occur. It's inevitable. Too much money is >>>> on the table... >>>> >>>> But because Apache's licensing is so open, Apache will have a hard time >>>> controlling derivative works... >>>> I believe that Steve is incorrect in his assertion concerning potential >>>> loss of any patent protection. Again Apache's licensing is very open and >>>> as long as they follow Apache's Ts and Cs, they are covered. >>>> >>>> Note: because I am sending this from my email address at my client, I >>>> am obliged to say that this email is my opinion and does not reflect on >>>> the opinion of my client... >>>> (you know the rest....) >>>> >>>> Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos... >>>> >>>> Mike Segel >>>> >>>> On May 16, 2011, at 6:02 AM, "Steve Loughran" >>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 13/05/11 23:57, Allen Wittenauer wrote: >>>> >>>> On May 13, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> >>>> Yup. Which is why I doubt *any* commercial entity can claim "includes >>>> Apache Hadoop" (including Cloudera). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> but they can claim it is a derivative work, which CDH clearly is, >>>> (Though if we were to come up with a formal declaration of what a >>>> derivative work is, we'd have to handle the fact that it is a superset. >>>> Even worse, you may realise a release is the ordered application of a >>>> sequence of patches, and if the patches are applied in a different order >>>> you may end up with a different body of source code...) >>>> >>>> Something that implements the APIs may not be a derivative work, >>>> depending on how much of the original code is in there. You could look >>>> at the base classes and interfaces and produce a clean room >>>> implementation (relying on the notion that interfaces are a list of >>>> facts and not copyrightable in the US), but whoever does that may >>>> encounter the issue that Google's donation of the right to use their MR >>>> patent may not apply to such implementations. >>>> >>>> >>>> The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and >>>> is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you >>>> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >>>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of >>>> its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the >>>> original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. >>>> >>> >>> >>> The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and >>> is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are >>> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of >>> its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the >>> original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. >> > > > The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is > intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy > of it from your computer or paper files.
