You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> on 2016/10/04 17:58:01 UTC
Re: How to denote unusual copyright circumstances, was Re: [VOTE]
Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3
After further consideration, I have a patch in flight to fix that. It
is a compiled source file.
However, my question was intended to be broader. As Henry notes, there
are some files that are Copyright Cloudera that were not part of the
SGA. How shall we annotate those to let future IPMC release voters
understand that the files are intentionally annotated the way they
are?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> This (an another couple of things in your review) might stay the same
>> in the next release, but be allowed (as I read it) under the licensing
>> rules.
>
> As long as it not compile source files it should be fine. It's not not binary files i.e. jpg and pngs and the like are ok. What does contain the file?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: How to denote unusual copyright circumstances, was Re: [VOTE]
Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3
Posted by Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>.
Thanks, Stian - I'll fix this squeasel notification issue in LICENSE.
I'll talk to the Impala community about whether this is "important
enough" or "just an innocent embedded dependency".
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 4 October 2016 at 20:21, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > After further consideration, I have a patch in flight to fix that. It
>>> > is a compiled source file.
>>> >
>>> > However, my question was intended to be broader. As Henry notes, there
>>> > are some files that are Copyright Cloudera that were not part of the
>>> > SGA. How shall we annotate those to let future IPMC release voters
>>> > understand that the files are intentionally annotated the way they
>>> > are?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Is Cloudera willing to donate them?
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps - but these files belong to their own, separate projects, distinct
>> from Apache Impala, but are a bit too small to support a community and
>> therefore aren't good candidates for incubation.
>>
>> Isn't the right way to address this to make a note in LICENSE.txt? That's
>> what we do for compatibly-licensed files which have a non-ASF copyright
>> holder.
>
> They can still be donated to Impala with another Software Grant,
> however you would need that both from Cloudera Inc. and Sergey Lyubka
> (CTO of Cloudera) given the joint (c) at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-impala/blob/master/be/src/thirdparty/squeasel/squeasel.c
>
> (I guess this code predates Sergey's co-founding of the Cloudera corporation)
>
>
> Somehow Cloudera's (c) is not noted in
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-impala/blob/master/be/src/thirdparty/squeasel/LICENSE
> and neither are listed in the top-level LICENSE - so that is what
> needs sorting out.
>
>
> Many ASF projects 'adapt' such free-hanging "bits and bobs code" under
> their umbrella - sometimes such code can get a "new life" - that's
> after all part of what open source is about.
>
>
> If they are in a SG it means they would be covered by the ASF license.
> But there should not be a big problem with them being mentioned in the
> LICENSE file with the compatible MIT license - at least if it's likely
> to be "dormant" code that won't evolve much under Apache. The only
> effect is that some of the protections of the ASF license then won't
> clearly apply - e.g. protection against patent litigation.
>
> I guess the main principle is that the 'main' project code should be
> covered by the software grant - having remnants from the same
> copyright holder that is not part of the software grant should
> understandably be a yellow flag.
>
>
> I think as a project (with mentors help) Impala will have to review if
> the code in question is "important enough" (e.g. contains a patented
> algorithm, or is core to how Impala works) to pursue additional
> Software Grant (or license change) from upstream or if it's just an
> innocent embedded dependency that can be noted it in the top level
> LICENSE.
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: How to denote unusual copyright circumstances, was Re: [VOTE]
Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On 4 October 2016 at 20:21, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > After further consideration, I have a patch in flight to fix that. It
>> > is a compiled source file.
>> >
>> > However, my question was intended to be broader. As Henry notes, there
>> > are some files that are Copyright Cloudera that were not part of the
>> > SGA. How shall we annotate those to let future IPMC release voters
>> > understand that the files are intentionally annotated the way they
>> > are?
>> >
>>
>> Is Cloudera willing to donate them?
>>
>
> Perhaps - but these files belong to their own, separate projects, distinct
> from Apache Impala, but are a bit too small to support a community and
> therefore aren't good candidates for incubation.
>
> Isn't the right way to address this to make a note in LICENSE.txt? That's
> what we do for compatibly-licensed files which have a non-ASF copyright
> holder.
They can still be donated to Impala with another Software Grant,
however you would need that both from Cloudera Inc. and Sergey Lyubka
(CTO of Cloudera) given the joint (c) at
https://github.com/apache/incubator-impala/blob/master/be/src/thirdparty/squeasel/squeasel.c
(I guess this code predates Sergey's co-founding of the Cloudera corporation)
Somehow Cloudera's (c) is not noted in
https://github.com/apache/incubator-impala/blob/master/be/src/thirdparty/squeasel/LICENSE
and neither are listed in the top-level LICENSE - so that is what
needs sorting out.
Many ASF projects 'adapt' such free-hanging "bits and bobs code" under
their umbrella - sometimes such code can get a "new life" - that's
after all part of what open source is about.
If they are in a SG it means they would be covered by the ASF license.
But there should not be a big problem with them being mentioned in the
LICENSE file with the compatible MIT license - at least if it's likely
to be "dormant" code that won't evolve much under Apache. The only
effect is that some of the protections of the ASF license then won't
clearly apply - e.g. protection against patent litigation.
I guess the main principle is that the 'main' project code should be
covered by the software grant - having remnants from the same
copyright holder that is not part of the software grant should
understandably be a yellow flag.
I think as a project (with mentors help) Impala will have to review if
the code in question is "important enough" (e.g. contains a patented
algorithm, or is core to how Impala works) to pursue additional
Software Grant (or license change) from upstream or if it's just an
innocent embedded dependency that can be noted it in the top level
LICENSE.
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: How to denote unusual copyright circumstances, was Re: [VOTE]
Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3
Posted by Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org>.
On 4 October 2016 at 11:04, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > After further consideration, I have a patch in flight to fix that. It
> > is a compiled source file.
> >
> > However, my question was intended to be broader. As Henry notes, there
> > are some files that are Copyright Cloudera that were not part of the
> > SGA. How shall we annotate those to let future IPMC release voters
> > understand that the files are intentionally annotated the way they
> > are?
> >
>
> Is Cloudera willing to donate them?
>
Perhaps - but these files belong to their own, separate projects, distinct
from Apache Impala, but are a bit too small to support a community and
therefore aren't good candidates for incubation.
Isn't the right way to address this to make a note in LICENSE.txt? That's
what we do for compatibly-licensed files which have a non-ASF copyright
holder.
>
>
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >> This (an another couple of things in your review) might stay the same
> > >> in the next release, but be allowed (as I read it) under the licensing
> > >> rules.
> > >
> > > As long as it not compile source files it should be fine. It's not not
> > binary files i.e. jpg and pngs and the like are ok. What does contain the
> > file?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: How to denote unusual copyright circumstances, was Re: [VOTE]
Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> After further consideration, I have a patch in flight to fix that. It
> is a compiled source file.
>
> However, my question was intended to be broader. As Henry notes, there
> are some files that are Copyright Cloudera that were not part of the
> SGA. How shall we annotate those to let future IPMC release voters
> understand that the files are intentionally annotated the way they
> are?
>
Is Cloudera willing to donate them?
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> This (an another couple of things in your review) might stay the same
> >> in the next release, but be allowed (as I read it) under the licensing
> >> rules.
> >
> > As long as it not compile source files it should be fine. It's not not
> binary files i.e. jpg and pngs and the like are ok. What does contain the
> file?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>