incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC2
Date Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:26:41 GMT
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:43 PM Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:

> John,
> thanks for pointing me to the issue. I argue against Marvin on it, based on
> "this is a tool" that is made conveniently available for those who are not
> paranoid.
>
> NOTICE; Ok, let's rename the file.
> NOTICES-POSSIBLY-NEEDED-FOR-BINARY-DISTRIBUTION
>
>
Sure - but there's still issues with it.  And you still need a NOTICE file
in your source distribution.

Here's an example: fastjson is listed in the NOTICE file.  If I look at
fastjson's repository, and build artifacts, there's no NOTICE file
included.  As a result, there should be no entry in the NOTICE file for
this dependency.  https://github.com/alibaba/fastjson

Likewise, for each MIT licensed artifact, an entry in LICENSE should be
made pointing to the MIT license for that product.  Same applies to each
BSD-3-Clause licensed work included in the binary.  Same applies to other
non-Apache-2 licensed products (Apache 2 is already included, so you're
good).  Apache 2 products are meant to carry NOTICE files for copyright to
avoid repeating licenses.

At the same time, dexposed has a ridiculously long NOTICE file - completely
incorrectly build, but its all in there.  This may technically mean the
entire contents have to be included in your binary NOTICE file:
https://github.com/alibaba/dexposed/blob/master/NOTICE

If you need me to, I can go into each of your dependencies and give a heads
up, but would recommend that the PPMC does this, based on the assembling
guide I've linked to already.


> Ok?
>
>
I thought about your points a bit more last night, and conversely I want to
explain why its actually more of a burdon.  Suppose that for some reason I
found the contents of this class to be useful and wanted to use it alone in
my work:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-weex/blob/master/android/commons/src/main/java/com/alibaba/weex/commons/SimpleWeexActivity.java
.
By having an extremely verbose NOTICE, as a user of this file alone, I have
to carry all of that along with me.

I also just noticed that your files are including the full license text of
the apache license in each file.  We typically use the abbreviated version.


>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:01 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:57 AM Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:25 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:41 AM Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Note on gradle-wrapper.jar,
> > >
> > > > Agreed, and this is mostly my argument as well.  However, in *nix the
> > JAR
> > > > will get downloaded automatically if not present.  On windows, you
> need
> > > to
> > > > pre-install gradle.
> > >
> > > Where did you get this idea? The gradlew launches the Java program
> inside
> > > the gradle-wrapper.jar which in turn downloads the full Gradle distro
> if
> > > not present already. I have not heard neither that the gradlew would
> > > download the wrapper jar, nor that the gradle-wrapper does not work on
> > > Windows.
> > >
> > >
> > I must have seen a custom built version of gradlew then.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The argument I've seen from present VP Legal is that the JARs may
> have
> > > > viruses in them, or contain other malware.
> > >
> > > That was the silliest reason I have heard in a long time. With that
> > > argument, we only allow source distributions, only allow to use tools
> > that
> > > are built from source recursively back through time... Yeah! Right...
> > now,
> > > there are a few projects that needs that, such as the Bitcoin
> blockchain
> > > toolchain, as they distrust everything, and settled on some binary from
> > > decades ago with a known hash as the starting point. In any event, ASF
> > > would collapse under the "they may contain malware" banner of paranoia.
> > >
> > > I don't buy it, since I trust my fellow folks at ASF rather than assume
> > > malevolence from everyone.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't disagree with you.  And now may be a good time to bring this back
> > up.  But for now, its not allowable in the release.  See also
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-288
> >
> >
> >
> > > In this particular case, I don't think that gradle-wrapper.jar ever
> > > changes, so committing a new version would set off red flags, at least
> > with
> > > me (used Gradle for about 7 years now). A small script that traverse
> all
> > of
> > > Apache GitHub and compares them all??
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Note on LICENSE;
> > > > > IIUIC, the source distribution doesn't ship any dependencies
> (except
> > > Gradle
> > > > > above), and there is only Apache License to be considered.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for NOTICE, the ASF documentation you point to, basically says
> > that
> > > a)
> > > > > don't put in anything that is not bundled (i.e. just about nothing
> in
> > > the
> > > > > source release), b) no burden on downstream users. HOWEVER, by
> > > excluding
> > > > > the list of dependencies that will be in the resulting product, we
> > > would
> > > > > actually increase the burden of downstream users as they would need
> > to
> > > > > figure out what licensing requirements will come out of it all, if
> > they
> > > > > choose to distribute.
> > > > > Therefor, I would argue that documentation is in this case arguing
> > > against
> > > > > itself in a single sentence, and think that the approach taken by
> > Weex
> > > is
> > > > > appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I disagree.  I think you're thinking of source release vs binary
> > release.
> > > > Weex has only presented a source release.
> > >
> > > I am aware of that, but the documentation says "make it easier for the
> > > downstream" and by "excluding all non-bundled, but required,
> dependencies
> > > from NOTICE" we actually make it harder for the downstream. And sorry,
> I
> > > place "common sense" and "tribal knowledge" way over someone writing a
> > > documentation and perhaps didn't realize the consequences. I never stop
> > > thinking, just because I read something somewhere.
> > >
> > >
> > I'm not sure what a valid response to this would be.  I don't believe we
> > should be taking into account ease of use for downstream consumers,
> however
> > at the end of the day those downstream consumers of a source release
> > eventually get a binary and that binary should include proper data.
> What I
> > am trying to say is that these contents look more appropriate for the
> > binary release, which would be a satisfactory use case for downstream
> > consumers.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > --
> > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>

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