incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Owen <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
Date Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:54:19 GMT
That may be so, and I find this issue irritating to deal with, but I
don't see that it has bearing on what is ultimately correct. I think
that the guidance you refer to was wrong, according to the text of the
licenses, and the link I pointed to.

But even those are a bit ambiguous, so I raise the question here.
"This is unclear and annoying" != "This can be ignored", but maybe
there are other clear reasons that NOTICE does not need modification
after all.

LICENSE looks good. It looks like it is noting the license of lots of
the bundled third-party libraries, which seems correct. Some person or
process even helpfully grouped the 'category B' dependencies.

For NOTICE, here's a specific example. Drill distributes Apache
Commons Math 3.1, which is AL2 licensed. Its NOTICE includes stanzas

The BracketFinder (package org.apache.commons.math3.optimization.univariate)
and PowellOptimizer (package org.apache.commons.math3.optimization.general)
classes are based on the Python code in module "" (version 0.5)
developed by Travis E. Oliphant for the SciPy library (
Copyright © 2003-2009 SciPy Developers.

I had the same question -- since the .jar files contains its own
NOTICE.txt, is that enough? That doesn't seem to be what the AL2 says:

"... You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution
notices contained within such NOTICE file ... in at least one of the
following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the
Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided
along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the
Derivative Works ..."

... although that's getting pretty technical. But this is the part
where technical matters. Note that not all .jar files do copy their
NOTICE in META-INF for you.

The spirit of the license is that a downstream consumer finds this
info where she expects to find it. The top-level NOTICE seems like
that place, but, could argue anyone would expect to crack open each
.jar to figure it out? The stanza has to appear somewhere, no matter
what. It binds downstream consumers no matter what. To me it seemed
safer to make sure this info was copied into NOTICE but YMMV.

It seems clear that the release must only distribute IP in accordance
with their licenses. Worth a double-check at least, to feel confident
there is a defensible argument that it is?

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Ted Dunning <> wrote:
> Drill has had previous releases stopped *precisely* because NOTICE had too
> much stuff in it.  The items you mention are among these items.
> I think the release is satisfactory as is.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message