You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> on 2016/02/22 15:59:33 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Hi,
The PPMC vote to release Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0's RC3 passed and
I'm now submitting this to the IPMC.
Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNepARg8zW%2BXdoorQV48KSfkemi5HLuzgeeJarMTXcNF%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Result:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNdHR2Ji5rxahWN1z6Z64F8TEL6jMsepGZrr_rBWNuKGnA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.0-RC3/
Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
Thanks,
J-D
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Porting over my +1 from the podling vote. Not sure if it's binding in the
> > IPMC context if I already voted as PPMC.
>
> Traditionally such IPMC votes carry over. It's good (but not a
> requirement) for the release manager to list the Mentor/IPMC votes
> they expect to carry over from the PPMC vote.
>
Thanks Marvin. I won't bother porting my +1 over then (smile).
St.Ack
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
Thanks, we'll check with legal before our next release (or just remove the file)
-Todd
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Right, we actually noticed this as well and got in touch with the ACM
>> to clarify the licensing. We already fixed it for the next release in
>> this commit:
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kudu/commit/6991cd432d0be35743995b3ca7cb5eedc072e3cb
>>
>> Given it's not software so much as a template for a publication, there
>> isn't a particular open source license associated with it. But, we
>> received permission to redistribute, which we cited in the commit
>> message above and added the header requested by the ACM. We figured
>> that it wasn't necessary to re-spin the RC given the response was
>> basically that we were in the clear.
>
> Probably best to double check on legal discuss re this if your not already done so.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Right, we actually noticed this as well and got in touch with the ACM
> to clarify the licensing. We already fixed it for the next release in
> this commit:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kudu/commit/6991cd432d0be35743995b3ca7cb5eedc072e3cb
>
> Given it's not software so much as a template for a publication, there
> isn't a particular open source license associated with it. But, we
> received permission to redistribute, which we cited in the commit
> message above and added the header requested by the ACM. We figured
> that it wasn't necessary to re-spin the RC given the response was
> basically that we were in the clear.
Probably best to double check on legal discuss re this if your not already done so.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I haven't been following carefully, but isn't there a BSD header in these
> files? If so, couldn't your LICENSE refer people to the headers in those
> files?
You can and it's nice and useful to do so but it not legally required. All BSD ask for is a full text of the license and the header contains that.
That’s why I said I prefer the short form which usually includes the copyright holder name. Means all he info is in one place which is nice.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 3/1/16, 5:22 PM, "Todd Lipcon" <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
>> > to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned
>>upon,
>> > because licenses may change over time, or the links may break
>>
>> Correct. Also most licenses say you much include the full text of the
>> license in your distribution.
>>
>>
>OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
>
>"""
>src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
>src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
>src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
>src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
>WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
>3-clause BSD license.
>
> For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
>headers at the top of the respective files.
>"""
>
>...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
>license, instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt. Does that
>sound
>like the best path forward?
I haven't been following carefully, but isn't there a BSD header in these
files? If so, couldn't your LICENSE refer people to the headers in those
files?
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
>> >
>> > """
>> > src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
>> > src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
>> > src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
>> > src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
>> > WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
>> > 3-clause BSD license.
>> >
>> > For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
>> > headers at the top of the respective files.
>> > """
>> >
>> > ...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
>> > license
>>
>> That covers all license requirements AFAICS.
>>
>> > , instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt.
>>
>> I’d prefer the short form in the license point to the full text but that's
>> just my personal preference.
>>
>> The Kudu PPMC are free to deal with it in this way of they want.
>>
>>
> Thanks again for the input. I started to do as you suggested and just refer
> to the headers, but then I realized a slight complication -- this makes
> life harder for binary distributors. Currently, a binary distribution can
> simply include the 'LICENSE.txt' file (eg in
> /usr/share/doc/kudu/LICENSE.txt or somesuch) and be sure that they comply
> with the 2nd clause of the BSD license. If instead we refer to the source,
> a binary distributor would have to do the work of copy-pasting these
> notices back up into the LICENSE.txt file or other documentation in order
> to comply.
>
> Given that you said the PPMC is free to choose either way, I'll propose to
> the other PPMC members that we stay with the status quo and continue
> copying these licenses into the top-level file, so that binary distributors
> dont have to go on a scavenger hunt.
+1, I agree with your reasoning.
I've been thinking that our recommendations in the Licensing How-To
ought to change in line with such principles: more straight-up copying
and less editing at the possible cost of verbosity and redundancy,
while still satisfying the constraint of only providing information
about bundled bits.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
> >
> > """
> > src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
> > src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
> > src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
> > src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
> > WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
> > 3-clause BSD license.
> >
> > For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
> > headers at the top of the respective files.
> > """
> >
> > ...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
> > license
>
> That covers all license requirements AFAICS.
>
> > , instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt.
>
> I’d prefer the short form in the license point to the full text but that's
> just my personal preference.
>
> The Kudu PPMC are free to deal with it in this way of they want.
>
>
Thanks again for the input. I started to do as you suggested and just refer
to the headers, but then I realized a slight complication -- this makes
life harder for binary distributors. Currently, a binary distribution can
simply include the 'LICENSE.txt' file (eg in
/usr/share/doc/kudu/LICENSE.txt or somesuch) and be sure that they comply
with the 2nd clause of the BSD license. If instead we refer to the source,
a binary distributor would have to do the work of copy-pasting these
notices back up into the LICENSE.txt file or other documentation in order
to comply.
Given that you said the PPMC is free to choose either way, I'll propose to
the other PPMC members that we stay with the status quo and continue
copying these licenses into the top-level file, so that binary distributors
dont have to go on a scavenger hunt.
-Todd
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
>
> """
> src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
> src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
> src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
> src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
> WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
> 3-clause BSD license.
>
> For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
> headers at the top of the respective files.
> """
>
> ...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
> license
That covers all license requirements AFAICS.
> , instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt.
I’d prefer the short form in the license point to the full text but that's just my personal preference.
The Kudu PPMC are free to deal with it in this way of they want.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
> > to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned upon,
> > because licenses may change over time, or the links may break
>
> Correct. Also most licenses say you much include the full text of the
> license in your distribution.
>
>
OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
"""
src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
3-clause BSD license.
For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
headers at the top of the respective files.
"""
...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
license, instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt. Does that sound
like the best path forward?
-Todd
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
> to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned upon,
> because licenses may change over time, or the links may break
Correct. Also most licenses say you much include the full text of the license in your distribution.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
Hi Justin,
I'm working on making the changes you suggested below. A few follow-up
questions:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Hmm, I'm not seeing this -- got a line number? Line 614 in LICENSE.txt
> > says "StumbleUpon”.
>
> Sorry it was WebRTC line 360 and also LevelDB line 315.
>
>
WebRTC and LevelDB are both projects that were released by Google. So, the
BSD license's 3rd clause refers to Google rather than the project names.
So, will leave this.
> Can you clarify what this means?
>
> See [1] basically a pointer to the full test of the license in the source
> release.
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>
In the example provided in the link above, the "pointer" takes the form of
a file path 'deps/superwidget/'. But in our case, we are not fully
including the source distro where the code came from. Rather, we derived
some of our code from some of their code, piece-by-piece. So, we can't
point to their LICENSE file as a path within our source distro, as it's not
fully bundled. I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned upon,
because licenses may change over time, or the links may break, and thus
it's better to make sure the license text is captured at the time the
dependency is included.
Does that sound reasonable?
> Given it's not software so much as a template for a publication, there
> > isn't a particular open source license associated with it. But, we
> > received permission to redistribute, which we cited in the commit
> > message above and added the header requested by the ACM.
>
> I don’t know the full details and INAL but as far as I can tell under the
> terms of that license you have to pay to redistribute it.
>
> Even if you got permission to distribute from ACM are 3rd parties allowed
> to take this file and redistribute that?
>
> Either way it should be noted in LICENSE I think.
>
We are working around this by removing the file in question.
-Todd
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> Hmm, I'm not seeing this -- got a line number? Line 614 in LICENSE.txt
> says "StumbleUpon”.
Sorry it was WebRTC line 360 and also LevelDB line 315.
> Can you clarify what this means?
See [1] basically a pointer to the full test of the license in the source release.
> Given it's not software so much as a template for a publication, there
> isn't a particular open source license associated with it. But, we
> received permission to redistribute, which we cited in the commit
> message above and added the header requested by the ACM.
I don’t know the full details and INAL but as far as I can tell under the terms of that license you have to pay to redistribute it.
Even if you got permission to distribute from ACM are 3rd parties allowed to take this file and redistribute that?
Either way it should be noted in LICENSE I think.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
Hey Justin,
Thanks a lot for taking the time to check out the rc and vote. A
couple notes inline:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 (binding). Nice work on the LICENSE.
>
> I checked:
> - signature and hashes correct
> - release name contain incubating
> - DISCLAIMER exits
> - LICENSE file has some minor issues (see below)
> - NOTICE good
> - unable to compile on OS X (but notes say it only has experiment support)
>
> Minor issues LICENSE file:
> - BSD for Async HBase has "Google Inc.” in the 3rd clause probably a copy and paste error?
Hmm, I'm not seeing this -- got a line number? Line 614 in LICENSE.txt
says "StumbleUpon".
> - Path to WebRTC licensed files should include src/kudu/util/random.h
> - Missing license in LICENSE for FindGMock [1]
> - Possible incorrect Apache header on BSD license in file [2]? Should also be in LICENSE.
> - Header with copyright Cloudera which should be ASF? [3]
Thanks, will fix the four above for our next release.
> - Short form i.e. pointers to license file are preferred.
Can you clarify what this means? I thought, with the BSD license in
particular, it's important to reproduce the whole license because
there is a "substitution" of a company name into one of the clauses?
> There is possibly a more serious issue with the licensing of this file [4]. See also [5][6].
>
> From inside the file:
> "Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.”
>
> May be serious enough for another RC? IMO Up to the RM/PMC to decide that or fix in the next incubating release.
>
Right, we actually noticed this as well and got in touch with the ACM
to clarify the licensing. We already fixed it for the next release in
this commit:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kudu/commit/6991cd432d0be35743995b3ca7cb5eedc072e3cb
Given it's not software so much as a template for a publication, there
isn't a particular open source license associated with it. But, we
received permission to redistribute, which we cited in the commit
message above and added the header requested by the ACM. We figured
that it wasn't necessary to re-spin the RC given the response was
basically that we were in the clear.
> A few other minor things:
> - NOTICE file file line should probably be "Apache Kudu (incubating)" rather than "Apache Kudu”
Will fix.
> - There’s another github mirror here https://github.com/cloudera/kudu - does anyone else think that a little odd?
Since we originally lived at that location, we have a lot of stars,
watchers, and forks from that repository. So, we wanted to continue
maintaining it as a mirror, though we've edited the header on the top
of the page to indicate that it's not the primary source control.
We've been figuring this is no different than other projects that have
multiple github mirrors.
>
> JFYI The OSX compile error was (after about 1/2 hour of compiling things):
> + make -j8 install
> CDPATH="${ZSH_VERSION+.}:" && cd . && aclocal-1.14 -I m4
> /bin/sh: aclocal-1.14: command not found
> make: *** [aclocal.m4] Error 127
Interesting. I run on Ubuntu but hopefully another Kudu developer will
pipe up and might know what's going on here - probably missing some
'brew install <foo>' in the docs.
-Todd
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
+1 (binding). Nice work on the LICENSE.
I checked:
- signature and hashes correct
- release name contain incubating
- DISCLAIMER exits
- LICENSE file has some minor issues (see below)
- NOTICE good
- unable to compile on OS X (but notes say it only has experiment support)
Minor issues LICENSE file:
- BSD for Async HBase has "Google Inc.” in the 3rd clause probably a copy and paste error?
- Path to WebRTC licensed files should include src/kudu/util/random.h
- Missing license in LICENSE for FindGMock [1]
- Possible incorrect Apache header on BSD license in file [2]? Should also be in LICENSE.
- Header with copyright Cloudera which should be ASF? [3]
- Short form i.e. pointers to license file are preferred.
There is possibly a more serious issue with the licensing of this file [4]. See also [5][6].
From inside the file:
"Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.”
May be serious enough for another RC? IMO Up to the RM/PMC to decide that or fix in the next incubating release.
A few other minor things:
- NOTICE file file line should probably be "Apache Kudu (incubating)" rather than "Apache Kudu”
- There’s another github mirror here https://github.com/cloudera/kudu - does anyone else think that a little odd?
JFYI The OSX compile error was (after about 1/2 hour of compiling things):
+ make -j8 install
CDPATH="${ZSH_VERSION+.}:" && cd . && aclocal-1.14 -I m4
/bin/sh: aclocal-1.14: command not found
make: *** [aclocal.m4] Error 127
Thanks,
Justin
1. ./apache-kudu-incubating-0.7.0/cmake_modules/FindGMock.cmake
2. ./apache-kudu-incubating-0.7.0/cmake_modules/FindProtobuf.cmake
3. ./apache-kudu-incubating-0.7.0/python/Makefile
4. ./apache-kudu-incubating-0.7.0/docs/whitepaper/vldb.cls
5. http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/sig-alternate-v1.1
6. http://www.acm.org/publications/copyright-statement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@apache.org> wrote:
> Porting over my +1 from the podling vote. Not sure if it's binding in the
> IPMC context if I already voted as PPMC.
Traditionally such IPMC votes carry over. It's good (but not a
requirement) for the release manager to list the Mentor/IPMC votes
they expect to carry over from the PPMC vote.
Practically speaking, there's never going to be a case where we block
a release because an IPMC member only voted +1 on the podling dev
list.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@apache.org>.
Porting over my +1 from the podling vote. Not sure if it's binding in the
IPMC context if I already voted as PPMC.
Todd
On Feb 22, 2016 7:10 AM, "Jean-Daniel Cryans" <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The PPMC vote to release Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0's RC3 passed and
> I'm now submitting this to the IPMC.
>
> Vote thread:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNepARg8zW%2BXdoorQV48KSfkemi5HLuzgeeJarMTXcNF%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Result:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNdHR2Ji5rxahWN1z6Z64F8TEL6jMsepGZrr_rBWNuKGnA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.0-RC3/
>
> Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> J-D
>