spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Publishing official docker images for KubernetesSchedulerBackend
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:06:50 GMT
I'd follow LEGAL-270, yes.  The best resource on licensing is
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ; it doesn't all have to be AL2,
but needs to be compatible (sometimes with additional conditions). Auditing
is basically entrusted to the PMC when voting on releases. I'll look at it
with you.

Only bits that are redistributed officially matter. That is a Dockerfile
itself has no licensing issues. Images with copies of software would be the
issue. Distributing a whole JVM and Python distro is probably going to
bring in far too much.

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:59 PM Erik Erlandson <eerlands@redhat.com> wrote:

>
> Here are some specific questions I'd recommend for the Apache Spark PMC to
> bring to ASF legal counsel:
>
> 1) Does the philosophy described on LEGAL-270 still represent a sanctioned
> approach to publishing releases via container image?
> 2) If the transitive closure of pulled-in licenses on each of these images
> is limited to licenses that are defined as compatible with Apache-2
> <https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html>, does that satisfy ASF
> licensing and legal guidelines?
> 3) What form of documentation/auditing for (2) should be provided to meet
> legal requirements?
>
> I would define the proposed action this way; to include, as part of the
> Apache Spark official release process, publishing a "spark-base" image, to
> be tagged with the specific release, that consists of a build of the spark
> code for that release installed on a base-image (currently alpine, but
> possibly some other alternative like centos), combined with the jvm and
> python (and any of their transitive deps).  Additionally, some number of
> images derived from "spark-base" would be built, which consist of
> spark-base and a small layer of bash scripting for ENTRYPOINT and CMD, to
> support the kubernets back-end.  Optionally, similar images targeted for
> mesos or yarn might also be created.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Mark Hamstra <mark@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Reasoning by analogy to other Apache projects is generally not sufficient
>> when it come to securing legally permissible form or behavior -- that
>> another project is doing something is not a guarantee that they are doing
>> it right. If we have issues or legal questions, we need to formulate them
>> and our proposed actions as clearly and concretely as possible so that the
>> PMC can take those issues, questions and proposed actions to Apache counsel
>> for advice or guidance.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Erik Erlandson <eerlands@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been looking a bit more into ASF legal posture on licensing and
>>> container images. What I have found indicates that ASF considers container
>>> images to be just another variety of distribution channel.  As such, it is
>>> acceptable to publish official releases; for example an image such as
>>> spark:v2.3.0 built from the v2.3.0 source is fine.  It is not acceptable to
>>> do something like regularly publish spark:latest built from the head of
>>> master.
>>>
>>> More detail here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-270
>>>
>>> So as I understand it, making a release-tagged public image as part of
>>> each official release does not pose any problems.
>>>
>>> With respect to considering the licenses of other ancillary dependencies
>>> that are also installed on such container images, I noticed this clause in
>>> the legal boilerplate for the Flink images
>>> <https://hub.docker.com/r/library/flink/>:
>>>
>>> As with all Docker images, these likely also contain other software
>>>> which may be under other licenses (such as Bash, etc from the base
>>>> distribution, along with any direct or indirect dependencies of the primary
>>>> software being contained).
>>>>
>>>
>>> So it may be sufficient to resolve this via disclaimer.
>>>
>>> -Erik
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Erik Erlandson <eerlands@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Currently the containers are based off alpine, which pulls in BSD2 and
>>>> MIT licensing:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/19717#discussion_r154502824
>>>>
>>>> to the best of my understanding, neither of those poses a problem.  If
>>>> we based the image off of centos I'd also expect the licensing of any image
>>>> deps to be compatible.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Mark Hamstra <mark@clearstorydata.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What licensing issues come into play?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Erik Erlandson <eerlands@redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We've been discussing the topic of container images a bit more. 
The
>>>>>> kubernetes back-end operates by executing some specific CMD and ENTRYPOINT
>>>>>> logic, which is different than mesos, and which is probably not practical
>>>>>> to unify at this level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However: These CMD and ENTRYPOINT configurations are essentially
just
>>>>>> a thin skin on top of an image which is just an install of a spark
distro.
>>>>>> We feel that a single "spark-base" image should be publishable, that
is
>>>>>> consumable by kube-spark images, and mesos-spark images, and likely
any
>>>>>> other community image whose primary purpose is running spark components.
>>>>>> The kube-specific dockerfiles would be written "FROM spark-base"
and just
>>>>>> add the small command and entrypoint layers.  Likewise, the mesos
images
>>>>>> could add any specialization layers that are necessary on top of
the
>>>>>> "spark-base" image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this factorization sound reasonable to others?
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Erik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Mridul Muralidharan <
>>>>>> mridul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do support running on Apache Mesos via docker images - so
this
>>>>>>> would not be restricted to k8s.
>>>>>>> But unlike mesos support, which has other modes of running, I
believe
>>>>>>> k8s support more heavily depends on availability of docker images.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mridul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Sean Owen <sowen@cloudera.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Would it be logical to provide Docker-based distributions
of other
>>>>>>> pieces of
>>>>>>> > Spark? or is this specific to K8S?
>>>>>>> > The problem is we wouldn't generally also provide a distribution
>>>>>>> of Spark
>>>>>>> > for the reasons you give, because if that, then why not
RPMs and
>>>>>>> so on.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:41 AM Anirudh Ramanathan <
>>>>>>> ramanathana@google.com>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> In this context, I think the docker images are similar
to the
>>>>>>> binaries
>>>>>>> >> rather than an extension.
>>>>>>> >> It's packaging the compiled distribution to save people
the
>>>>>>> effort of
>>>>>>> >> building one themselves, akin to binaries or the python
package.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> For reference, this is the base dockerfile for the main
image
>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>> >> intend to publish. It's not particularly complicated.
>>>>>>> >> The driver and executor images are based on said base
image and
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> >> customize the CMD (any file/directory inclusions are
extraneous
>>>>>>> and will be
>>>>>>> >> removed).
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Is there only one way to build it? That's a bit harder
to reason
>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>> >> The base image I'd argue is likely going to always be
built that
>>>>>>> way. The
>>>>>>> >> driver and executor images, there may be cases where
people want
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> >> customize it - (like putting all dependencies into it
for
>>>>>>> example).
>>>>>>> >> In those cases, as long as our images are bare bones,
they can
>>>>>>> use the
>>>>>>> >> spark-driver/spark-executor images we publish as the
base, and
>>>>>>> build their
>>>>>>> >> customization as a layer on top of it.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> I think the composability of docker images, makes this
a bit
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> >> from say - debian packages.
>>>>>>> >> We can publish canonical images that serve as both -
a complete
>>>>>>> image for
>>>>>>> >> most Spark applications, as well as a stable substrate
to build
>>>>>>> >> customization upon.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Mark Hamstra <
>>>>>>> mark@clearstorydata.com>
>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> It's probably also worth considering whether there
is only one,
>>>>>>> >>> well-defined, correct way to create such an image
or whether
>>>>>>> this is a
>>>>>>> >>> reasonable avenue for customization. Part of why
we don't do
>>>>>>> something like
>>>>>>> >>> maintain and publish canonical Debian packages for
Spark is
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> >>> different organizations doing packaging and distribution
of
>>>>>>> infrastructures
>>>>>>> >>> or operating systems can reasonably want to do this
in a custom
>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>> >>> non-customary) way. If there is really only one
reasonable way
>>>>>>> to do a
>>>>>>> >>> docker image, then my bias starts to tend more toward
the Spark
>>>>>>> PMC taking
>>>>>>> >>> on the responsibility to maintain and publish that
image. If
>>>>>>> there is more
>>>>>>> >>> than one way to do it and publishing a particular
image is more
>>>>>>> just a
>>>>>>> >>> convenience, then my bias tends more away from maintaining
and
>>>>>>> publish it.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Sean Owen <sowen@cloudera.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Source code is the primary release; compiled
binary releases are
>>>>>>> >>>> conveniences that are also released. A docker
image sounds
>>>>>>> fairly different
>>>>>>> >>>> though. To the extent it's the standard delivery
mechanism for
>>>>>>> some artifact
>>>>>>> >>>> (think: pyspark on PyPI as well) that makes
sense, but is that
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> >>>> situation? if it's more of an extension or alternate
>>>>>>> presentation of Spark
>>>>>>> >>>> components, that typically wouldn't be part
of a Spark release.
>>>>>>> The ones the
>>>>>>> >>>> PMC takes responsibility for maintaining ought
to be the core,
>>>>>>> critical
>>>>>>> >>>> means of distribution alone.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:52 AM Anirudh Ramanathan
>>>>>>> >>>> <ramanathana@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> We're all working towards the Kubernetes
scheduler backend
>>>>>>> (full steam
>>>>>>> >>>>> ahead!) that's targeted towards Spark 2.3.
One of the
>>>>>>> questions that comes
>>>>>>> >>>>> up often is docker images.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> While we're making available dockerfiles
to allow people to
>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>> >>>>> their own docker images from source, ideally,
we'd want to
>>>>>>> publish official
>>>>>>> >>>>> docker images as part of the release process.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> I understand that the ASF has procedure
around this, and we
>>>>>>> would want
>>>>>>> >>>>> to get that started to help us get these
artifacts published
>>>>>>> by 2.3. I'd
>>>>>>> >>>>> love to get a discussion around this started,
and the thoughts
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> >>>>> community regarding this.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> --
>>>>>>> >>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> >>>>> Anirudh Ramanathan
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> --
>>>>>>> >> Anirudh Ramanathan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@spark.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message