nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:43:15 GMT
Mike,
while it is fresh in your head, any chance you have cycles to synthesize
this and put this up on the contributor's guide?

Tony

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Thanks for being so diligent on the L&N considerations.
>
> For the binary dependencies you're listing here I'd take the following
> approach:
> 1) For google rpc dependency that is a new version but appears to be
> the same LICENSE text I'd simply update this line [1] to say
> The binary distribution of this product bundles 'Google Protocol
> Buffers Java 2.5.0 and 3.3.1' -OR-
> The binary distribution of this product bundles 'Google Protocol Buffers
> Java'
>
> Also, be sure your nar's LICENSE includes the proper entry google rpc
> in its license.  See other nars for examples of this.  You might have
> already done this but I've not looked at the totality of the PR.
>
> 2) For Netty I think we're already covered sufficiently with our
> existing notice details as seen in our assembly NOTICE now [2].  But
> you should be sure to have a similar entry in your nar's NOTICE.  The
> other information they have in their NOTICE (of which 4.1 appears to
> be a superset) could be carried forward but all the binary references
> are irrelevant for what I'll describe in #3 next.  Their NOTICE
> entries which say "this includes a modified portion of" should
> probably be carried forward in the NOTICE in the nar and assembly
> level.  Since the 4.1 NOTICE is a superset I'd just use that one only
> [3]
>
> 3) Whether some binary dependencies NOTICE calls out a transitive
> binary dependency it might or might not have is not relevant.  What is
> relevant is which transitive dependencies, no matter how many levels
> deep it comes in, we pull into our nars or convenience binaries.  They
> must all be accounted for properly if we're including them.  See here
> for the general guidance on this [4].
>
> I realize the L&N stuff can be a bit daunting, especially at first or
> in complex and highly dependency heavy contributions.  Indeed it can
> feel like no good deed goes unpunished.  But we can definitely help
> you work through it.
>
> Thanks!
> Joe
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/m-hogue/nifi/blob/4b845b39f36ae38470017ea61b104d
> 01310b8f16/nifi-assembly/LICENSE#L1086
> [2] https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-assembly/NOTICE#L939
> [3] https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/4.1/NOTICE.txt
> [4] https://nifi.apache.org/licensing-guide.html
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For reference:
> > Netty 4.1 NOTICE
> > https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/4.1/NOTICE.txt
> > Netty 3.7  NOTICE
> > https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/3.7/NOTICE.txt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Background, I asked Mike how he put together the LICENSE, and why he
> added
> >> a separate section in the LICENSE for Google Protocol Buffers 3.3.1, and
> >> his answer that made sense was "well, what existed there was there had a
> >> version (2.5.0)".
> >>
> >> Interesting note, the Google Protocol Buffers LICENSE looks to be the
> >> same.
> >>
> >> Sort of the opposite issue with Netty. NOTICE didn't have a version of
> >> Netty, and the NOTICES between versions were fairly different.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Michael Hogue <
> >> michael.p.hogue89@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello all,
> >>>
> >>>    I'm attempting to merge a LICENSE and NOTICE i've created for a new
> >>> grpc
> >>> processor bundle [1,2] into the NiFi assembly. I've run into a couple
> of
> >>> things i don't know how to resolve:
> >>>
> >>> 1. If I add a new (transitive) dependency with a newer version than
> exists
> >>> elsewhere in the code _and_ the licenses are the same except for the
> >>> version, do the license for each of the versions need spelled out in
> the
> >>> nifi assembly LICENSE file?
> >>>
> >>> 2. One of the grpc dependencies i've added pulls in a version of netty
> >>> fairly different than what exists in the code already. Should there be
> a
> >>> separate block in the assembly NOTICE if they differ? Is it sufficient
> to
> >>> add to the existing netty block?
> >>>
> >>> PR reference:
> >>> https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1947/files#diff-c3a3e6d0
> >>> 27b17e530efdb23269e95968R1132
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4037
> >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4038
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>

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