hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What's going on? Two C++ clients being developed at the moment?
Date Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:20:40 GMT
My understanding at this point is someone wants to contribute a C++ client
which:
- Is a significant amount of code
- Is a significant amount of code developed by individuals without an ICLA
on file at the Foundation
- Is or was GPL 3 licensed (rights holder can relicense as ASL 2.0, no
problem)
- May have copyleft dependencies or generate files with copyleft license
headers (this would be a showstopper, these have to go)
- Includes copy-paste code with third party licenses (which might be ok, as
long as copyright headers are preserved and licensing is compatible)

I would only be comfortable taking this on via the Incubator's IP Clearance
process (http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/). This should not be
considered as a roadblock - certainly I don't mean it as such - but instead
acknowledgement we are dealing with a code grant of uncertain IP
provenance, so all concerned should be aware of the necessary process for
getting it in should we want to move forward.


On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dima Spivak <dspivak@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Just to be clear, Apache 2 licensed code CAN be included in GPL 3 projects,
> but GPL 3 licensed code CANNOT be included in Apache 2 projects (one-way
> only). http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html provides the
> complete story, I just raised my point early because I’ve personally
> witnessed the pain that results from people assuming that one FOSS license
> is just like any other.
>
> More broadly, I’m assuming I’m not in the minority when I say that until
> this thread, I had no clue what was going on with these efforts. Easy
> access to a design doc in a JIRA (if one exists) should always come before
> an 11-page ReviewBoard drop, in my humble opinion.
>
> -Dima
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Priyadharshini Karthikeyan <
> priya.darshini@hashmapinc.com> wrote:
>
> > While generating the configure shell script from configure.ac file,
> > autoconf by default installs ./install.sh and ./missing. The
> > ownership/copyright that you are mentioning has come from those default
> > installs and We have not copied any outside code intentionally. I agree
> > these dependencies are not suppose to be checked in to the repo.
> >
> > Since Apache License version 2.0 is compatible with version 3.0 of the
> GPL
> > (GNU Public License), We used GPL for building our hbase C++ client. If
> it
> > is not supposed to be used, we will not use it. Thanks for pointing out
> and
> > I will address this as high priority.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/19/16, 2:50 AM, "Elliott Clark" <eclark@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:59 PM, <vamsi@hashmapinc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Whenever we added new source files, the default template injected our
> > >> names into those files.
> > >>
> > >
> > >There are copyrights from:
> > >
> > >Copyright (C) 1994 X Consortium
> > >Copyright (C) 1996-2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > >Originally written by Fran,cois Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca>, 1996.
> > >
> > >None of those are you. Neither of those are auto generated from
> eclipse's
> > >templates.
> >
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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