nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Hogue <michael.p.hogu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:25:35 GMT
Joe,

   Thanks much for the detailed response. That's really helpful in
determining what i should and shouldn't do w.r.t LICENSEs and NOTICEs. I'll
capture this in the contributor guide as well.

Thanks again,
Mike

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:44 PM Mike Hogue <hogue23@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not a problem, assuming i'm able to edit the contributor's guide.
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:43 PM Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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