spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:44:38 GMT
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Which are unneeded?
>
> For starters permissive licenses are mentioned, NOTICE is for required notices only.
I'd suggest you ask on general @incubator mailing list for a review. People there have knowledge
and experience of what should and should not be in a NOTICE file.

The entries at the beginning are all Category B licenses, and ...
"Software under the following licenses may be included in binary form
within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled
(see below):"

This is my understanding of "appropriate labeling".


> The source license and notice should be different from the binary licence and notice
as the contents of the artefacts are different. [1]

It's a fair point that this would be better. I'll put it on my radar.


> It’s never necessary to have jar in a source release, they can be compiled as part
of the build process. I’s suggest you read Roy’s view on this [2].

I don't think that's true, if a test needs a jar to load to test jar
loading. That's what this is AFAIK, just like including a JPEG in the
source distro to support a JPEG test. It is not black-box compiled
code that is part of the software product, which is what Roy is
correctly calling out as not OK in a source release.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@spark.apache.org


Mime
View raw message