incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil
Date Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:42:45 GMT
In any case, the NOTICE files included in every jar are preserved.  The
Drill binary release complies *exactly* with the language "include a
readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file".

There is no violation of OSS licenses going on here.



On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Sean Owen <srowen@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
> > I admire the good-faith efforts that the Spark (and Solr) folks have put
> > in attempting to comply with their interpretation of ASF requirements,
> but I
> > don't think we should encourage podlings to emulate the current state of
> their
> > licensing documentation.
>
> Yes, but much more importantly, it is not *violating an OSS license*
> to distribute software that says 'you must include X in a NOTICE file
> if you distribute this' without including X in the NOTICE file?
>
> Yes it means greater downstream burden, yes it may have originated
> from a 'hack', but that doesn't seem to make the license not say what
> it says. Obviously I'd rather not have to do this either.
>
> It's certainly a best practice to not put things in NOTICE that aren't
> actually required. For example upstream NOTICE may refer to components
> that the downstream project does not distribute. I think it's also a
> good reason to think about whether a project actually needs to
> distribute third-party code versus merely depend on it via Maven.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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