hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruilong Huo <r...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: Layout of LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER files for Apache HAWQ 2.2.0.0-incubating rpm binary release
Date Tue, 23 May 2017 07:39:39 GMT
Thanks Lei and Roman for the comments. Keeping the LICENSE and NOTICE files
separated for each hawq rpm package makes it clear to understand and
minimum maintenance effort.

The DISCLAIMER is common for hawq components. However, we have separate
binary packages for different components, such hawq core, pxf, and ranger,
which means users might download and install them separately.
So, I would prefer that we have separate DISCLAIMER file for each of the
hawq rpm package.

For now, we have identified the license information for hawq dependencies
and proposed the process to merge that information to LICENSE and NOTICE
files for hawq components. Can you review that and give your feedback
before we prepare these files for further review?

Also, can you please elaborate on the license management plugin and
documentation for them? Thanks.



Best regards,
Ruilong Huo

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message