spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Owen <>
Subject Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:35:33 GMT

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Justin Mclean <> wrote:
> Anyway looking at the preview I noticed a few minor things:
> - Most release artefacts have the word “apache” in them the ones at [1] do not. Adding
“apache” gives you some extra legal protection.

As to why just 'spark' -- I believe it's merely historical. My
understanding of the trademark policy from discussions over the past
month is that software identifiers like Maven coordinates do not
strictly require 'apache'. I don't imagine that's hard to change; I
don't know if it causes some disruption downstream or what. Hence it
has just stood as is.

> - The year in the NOTICE file is out of date. These days most NOTICE files have a year

I can change that to "Copyright 2014 and onwards" for completeness, yes.

> - The NOTICE file seems to contains a lot of unneeded content [3]

Which are unneeded? I created it a long while ago to contain what it
needed, and have tried to prune or add to it as needed. I could have
missed something. This is covering all the binary artifacts the
project produces.

> - The NOTICE file lists CDDL and EPL licenses, I believe these should be in the LICENSE/NOTICE
file for the binary distribution and not the source distribution. CDDL and EPL licensed code
are category B not allowed to be bundled in source releases. [2] A LICENSE / NOTICE should
match to what is actually bundled into the artefact. [4]

These category B artifacts are not included in source form. Yes, these
entries are for the binary distribution. There is one NOTICE file for
both binary and source distributions. I think this is simply because
it's hard to maintain both, and not-wrong to maintain one file that
covers both.

> - The source release contains a number of jars. (Looks like they are used for testing
but still…)

Yes the ones I'm aware of are necessary -- like, they're literally
testing how UDF jars get loaded by certain code paths. I think that's
not what the prohibition against jars in source distros is trying to
get at. It's not distributing functional code in binary-only form.

> - The LICENSE may to be missing a few things like for instance moderizr [5]

I agree, good catch. This is MIT-licensed and it's not in licenses/.
I'll fix that.

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

View raw message