hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Layout of LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER files for Apache HAWQ 2.2.0.0-incubating rpm binary release
Date Mon, 22 May 2017 16:46:30 GMT
Hi!

sorry for the belated reply. A couple of points:
   0. do you have the binary LICENSE and NOTICE files available some place
   so I can review them before we make a decision on where they need to go?

   1. personally I'd prefer option #2 but truth be told I don't really
understand why
   would you have a separate copy of DISCLAIMER -- that is common between
   everything and can be taken from the top level

   2. for Java binaries (such as PXF) it may be much more convenient to use
   one of the license management plugins available rather than to try and manage
   it manually. Remember -- you'd have to make sure appropriate
licensing statement
   ends up in jar files.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Ruilong Huo <rhuo@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> Please let us know if you get a chance to review this. Or someone else who
> can help on this? Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Ruilong Huo
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Ruilong Huo <rhuo@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi Roman,
>>
>> Currently I am preparing LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER files for Apache
>> HAWQ 2.2.0.0-incubating rpm binary release. The components of the binary
>> package
>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.2.0.0-incubating.RC2/apache-hawq-rpm-2.2.0.0-incubating.tar.gz>
>> are as below:
>>
>> *> tar -xzvf apache-hawq-rpm-2.2.0.0-incubating.tar.gz; tree
>> hawq_rpm_packages*
>> hawq_rpm_packages
>> ├── apache-hawq-2.2.0.0-el7.x86_64.rpm
>> ├── apache-tomcat-7.0.62-el6.noarch.rpm
>> ├── hawq-ranger-plugin-2.2.0.0-1.el7.centos.noarch.rpm
>> ├── pxf-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>> ├── pxf-hbase-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>> ├── pxf-hdfs-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>> ├── pxf-hive-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>> ├── pxf-jdbc-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>> ├── pxf-json-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>> └── pxf-service-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>>
>> Given the LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER for Apache HAWQ source in top
>> directory:
>>
>> *> tree incubator-hawq/*
>> incubator-hawq/
>> ├── DISCLAIMER
>> ├── LICENSE
>> └── NOTICE
>>
>> We plan to put LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER for binary release in a
>> dedicated directory named dist which under top directory. Then these files
>> will be copied to the rpm packages in packaging stage.
>>
>> Here are two options for the layout of the LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER
>> for the components:
>>
>> *Option 1: Combine the licenses of all the components into one LICENSE,
>> NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER respectively. For example:*
>>
>> *> cd $APACHE_HAWQ_TOP_DIR; tree dist*
>> dist
>> ├── DISCLAIMER
>> ├── LICENSE
>> └── NOTICE
>>
>> *Option 2: Keep the separated LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER for each of
>> the components. For example:*
>>
>> *> cd $APACHE_HAWQ_TOP_DIR; tree dist/*
>> dist/
>> ├── hawq
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> ├── pxf
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> ├── pxf-hbase
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> ├── pxf-hdfs
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> ├── pxf-hive
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> ├── pxf-jdbc
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> ├── pxf-json
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> ├── pxf-service
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> ├── ranger-plugin
>> │   ├── DISCLAIMER
>> │   ├── LICENSE
>> │   └── NOTICE
>> └── tomcat
>>     ├── DISCLAIMER
>>     ├── LICENSE
>>     └── NOTICE
>>
>> For option 1, it is easier to maintain the LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER
>> files. However, it contains all the licenses for all the components. Thus
>> it is hard to identify which component contains what licenses.
>>
>> For option 2, it needs extra maintenance effort. But, it is clear that
>> what are the licenses for each of the components.
>>
>> Would you please share you comments and let us know which is better?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ruilong Huo
>>

Mime
View raw message