Updates to LICENSE and NOTICE #21610
Conversation
|
ok to test |
NOTICE
Outdated
| @@ -1,667 +1,11 @@ | |||
| Apache Spark | |||
| Copyright 2014 and onwards The Apache Software Foundation. | |||
| Copyright 2014 - 20018 The Apache Software Foundation. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes 2018 as that when the last release was. Copyright expires so it nice to know what the year was.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah I see what you are saying - I'll fix it to be 2018 not 20018
| See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
| limitations under the License. | ||
| This product includes software developed as part of | ||
| The Android Open Source Project (http://source.android.com). |
|
Test build #92199 has finished for PR 21610 at commit
|
|
Is this patch trying to make this into LICENSE/NOTICE appropriate for a source release? then they wouldn't work for a binary release. Maybe we can
We can do the last one separately, even second to last, but would like to capture the fixes parts here if possible and get those in. |
|
Yes it 's trying to correct if for the source release. As per the guiding principle [1] the LICENSE and NOTICE needs to represent what in the release this often mean you get different LICENSE and NOTICE files. [2] I think the above steps sound fine. It looks like there a couple of things are missing (the licenses I've added) and there's license info in the NOTICE file that should be in LICENSE. |
|
Test build #92252 has finished for PR 21610 at commit
|
|
OK if you want to pare down the PR to fixes we had discussed here and on the thread, I can get it in. I will need to just reevaluate the whole LICENSE and NOTICE anyway as it's clear it's at least a little out of date. So I'll be doing that in another PR anyway. OK if you'd rather me just run with that too. |
srowen
left a comment
srowen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@justinmclean have a look at my attempt at #21640 which I hope takes care of these and more issues. It's a complete overhaul.
| @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ | |||
| Creative Commons Legal Code | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this? CC0 is treated like public domain, as per http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#can-works-placed-in-the-public-domain-be-included-in-apache-products . I found the image online that prompted this and it's also described as public domain.
|
You'll note on that link you give that public domain or CC0 licenced bits
should be treated the same way as other permissive licenced software like
MIT or BSD. i.e you add the text of the license (or a pointer to it) to the
LICENCE file.
…On Tue., 26 Jun. 2018, 8:12 am Sean Owen, ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
@justinmclean <https://github.com/justinmclean> have a look at my attempt
at #21640 <#21640> which I hope takes
care of these and more issues. It's a complete overhaul.
------------------------------
In licenses/LICENSE-kittens.txt
<#21610 (comment)>:
> @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+Creative Commons Legal Code
Do we need this? CC0 is treated like public domain, as per
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#can-works-placed-in-the-public-domain-be-included-in-apache-products
. I found the image online that prompted this and it's also described as
public domain.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#21610 (review)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAI0eBI1VcUoXlASoB7POK1fQNIIIWtHks5uAWBigaJpZM4UzH3I>
.
|
|
Oh I missed this: "Attribution is required (in a similar fashion to permissive licenses)." Hm, I wonder why (other than being nice). But it's easy enough to revise this to attribute several other public domain deps. |
|
Just to be clear it's not dependancies that need to be listed only what is actually bundled in the release artefact.
|
|
Certainly. I'm saying that these are nearly the same thing, because the binary release is, mostly, a collection of compiled Spark code and all its transitive dependencies. This is why it's correct to start from that list. It's not 100% what makes it into the release: some bundled code doesn't show up this way (shaded stuff). It also bears some manual sense checking. But it appeared to give the correct list of dependencies. |
|
Nope they are not. It's best to inspect the binaries by hand and see what is actually bundled.
|
|
Justin can you be more specific? I'm looking at our last binary release and it certainly has (what appear to be) all of Spark's transitive dependencies in jars/. What are you seeing? |
|
BTW I think this can be closed. I separately overhauled the LICENSE/NOTICE. |
4 participants
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
LICENSE and NOTICE changes as per ASF policy
How was this patch tested?
N/A
Please review http://spark.apache.org/contributing.html before opening a pull request.