spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcin Tustin <>
Subject Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:28:33 GMT
Changing the maven co-ordinates is going to cause everyone in the world who
uses a maven-based build system to have update their builds. Given that sbt
uses ivy by default, that's likely to affect almost every spark user.

Unless we can articulate what the extra legal protections are (and frankly
I don't believe that having or not having apache in the maven co-ordinates
or jar filenames makes a jot of difference - I'm happy to be proved wrong)
I'm strongly negative on such a change.


On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Sean Owen <> wrote:

> +dev
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Justin Mclean <>
> wrote:
> > Anyway looking at the preview I noticed a few minor things:
> > - Most release artefacts have the word “apache” in them the ones at [1]
> do not. Adding “apache” gives you some extra legal protection.
> As to why just 'spark' -- I believe it's merely historical. My
> understanding of the trademark policy from discussions over the past
> month is that software identifiers like Maven coordinates do not
> strictly require 'apache'. I don't imagine that's hard to change; I
> don't know if it causes some disruption downstream or what. Hence it
> has just stood as is.
> > - The year in the NOTICE file is out of date. These days most NOTICE
> files have a year range.
> I can change that to "Copyright 2014 and onwards" for completeness, yes.
> > - The NOTICE file seems to contains a lot of unneeded content [3]
> Which are unneeded? I created it a long while ago to contain what it
> needed, and have tried to prune or add to it as needed. I could have
> missed something. This is covering all the binary artifacts the
> project produces.
> > - The NOTICE file lists CDDL and EPL licenses, I believe these should be
> in the LICENSE/NOTICE file for the binary distribution and not the source
> distribution. CDDL and EPL licensed code are category B not allowed to be
> bundled in source releases. [2] A LICENSE / NOTICE should match to what is
> actually bundled into the artefact. [4]
> These category B artifacts are not included in source form. Yes, these
> entries are for the binary distribution. There is one NOTICE file for
> both binary and source distributions. I think this is simply because
> it's hard to maintain both, and not-wrong to maintain one file that
> covers both.
> > - The source release contains a number of jars. (Looks like they are
> used for testing but still…)
> Yes the ones I'm aware of are necessary -- like, they're literally
> testing how UDF jars get loaded by certain code paths. I think that's
> not what the prohibition against jars in source distros is trying to
> get at. It's not distributing functional code in binary-only form.
> > - The LICENSE may to be missing a few things like for instance moderizr
> [5]
> I agree, good catch. This is MIT-licensed and it's not in licenses/.
> I'll fix that.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Want to work at Handy? Check out our culture deck and open roles 
Latest news <> at Handy
Handy just raised $50m 
by Fidelity

View raw message