Helm chart: use separate LICENSE file

[adutra]

... instead of symlinkng to the repository's root LICENSE file.

This is motivated by the fact that the root LICENSE file now includes notices about the Gradle wrapper. This mention would be inappropriate in a packaged Helm chart since there is no binary files at all in a Helm chart package.

[adutra]

@jbonofre @snazy let me know if this makes sense and if it is compatible with source and binary releases.

(We need to start discussing Helm chart releases btw - these can be considered "source" releases imho since there is no binary executable included in a Helm chart.)

[jbonofre]

@adutra it depends what we distribute. If we plan to do a "source distribution" only with helm charts (for instance, something like helm/polaris/build/polaris-helm-xxx.tgz), then it makes sense to have a clean LICENSE and NOTICE.

If helm "release" will stay part of the "main" source distribution, then no need.

We have to provide LICENSE and NOTICE only in artifacts we distribute.

If we are in the first case, for consistency, I would also copy an "empty" NOTICE file in helm/polaris folder. Do you mind to add empty NOTICE ?

[adutra]

@jbonofre Yes we are in the first case.

A Helm chart is typically released by first doing a helm package, which creates a tgz with the contents of helm/polaris. Then we'd need to push it to a registry. For example, Nessie has its own Helm registry here: https://github.com/projectnessie/charts.projectnessie.org – we could do something similar for Polaris.

If we are in the first case, for consistency, I would also copy an "empty" NOTICE file in helm/polaris folder. Do you mind to add empty NOTICE ?

Ok!

[jbonofre]

@adutra sorry I wasn't clear. By "clean" NOTICE, I mean:

Apache Polaris (incubating)
Copyright 2024 The Apache Software Foundation

[dimas-b]

Do we even have to have this NOTICE in Helm source distributions? IMHO, it does not add anything that is not already covered by LICENSE.

[dimas-b]

I guess we have to have the default NOTICE per https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

... but the standard text appears to be a bit more verbose:

Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
Copyright [XXXX-XXXX] The Apache Software Foundation

This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (/).

[dimas-b]

LGTM, but deferring to @jbonofre for final approval :)

[dimas-b]

dev discussion for helm releases: https://lists.apache.org/thread/428xb6dfrmm7xgr91p2dxoy8ptcyovs2

[adutra]

@jbonofre do you think this is good to go? Thanks!

[jbonofre]

@jbonofre do you think this is good to go? Thanks!

Yeah, it looks good to me. Thanks !