On 15/06/11 17:23, Eli Collins wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Allen Wittenauer<[email protected]> 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? You've patched Hadoop many times, should
your employer not be able to say they use Hadoop? I'm -1 on a
proposal that does this.
I think there is a big difference between some company that uses Hadoop
with some patches internally and a company that puts out a distribution for
others to use, usually for-profit.
The wiki makes no such distinction. The PMC will apply the rules
equally to all parties.
According to Owen's email if you are using a release of Apache Hadoop
and have applied more than 2 security patches or any backports you are
not using Hadoop.
Thanks,
Eli
What you do in house is of no concern to the trademarks and PMC people,
but naming of public redistributables is -and that's where the confusion
of what "a distribution of Apache Hadoop" is, because it's gone from
weakly defined to very vague recently, and that needs to be corrected
before people are left in a world of confusion.
It's been complicated enough with people posting issues related to the
Cloudera Distribution including Apache Hadoop, what happens when people
start posting EMC-enterprise-hadoopish issues, file bugreps against
Brisk's "Hadoop built on other things" product on the apache JIRA?
