You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@kafka.apache.org by Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com> on 2011/12/01 03:29:48 UTC
Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Hi,
The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
http://apache.markmail.org/message/hntuhwkbazwlfdoe?q=Kafka+list:org.apache.incubator.general
We would appreciate it if you can please take the time to review this now,
since we would like to ensure a smoother vote this time around.
Thanks,
Neha
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 December 2011 06:16, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I notice that the NOTICE has this incomplete statement:
>
> This product includes the scala runtime and compiler
> (www.scala-lang.org) developed by EPFL, which includes
> the following license:
>
> There is not any following license.
Nor should there be in the NOTICE file.
I think the SCALA NOTICE should read
>>>
This product includes the scala runtime and compiler (www.scala-lang.org)
Copyright (c) 2002-2010 EPFL, Lausanne, unless otherwise specified.
<<<
In my reading of it, that is all the license requires.
This assumes that the product does indeed *include* the SCALA compiler.
Otherwise the references must be removed from NOTICE and LICENSE.
> I also notice that the LICENSE file has copyright notices.
I don't think that's a problem; they are often included in 3rd party licenses.
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neha Narkhede [mailto:neha.narkhede@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 18:30
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: kafka-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
> Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
>
> Hi,
>
> The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
> and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
>
> The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/hntuhwkbazwlfdoe?q=Kafka+list:org.apache.incubator.general
>
> We would appreciate it if you can please take the time to review this now,
> since we would like to ensure a smoother vote this time around.
>
> Thanks,
> Neha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I notice that the NOTICE has this incomplete statement:
This product includes the scala runtime and compiler
(www.scala-lang.org) developed by EPFL, which includes
the following license:
There is not any following license.
I also notice that the LICENSE file has copyright notices.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Neha Narkhede [mailto:neha.narkhede@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 18:30
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: kafka-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Hi,
The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
http://apache.markmail.org/message/hntuhwkbazwlfdoe?q=Kafka+list:org.apache.incubator.general
We would appreciate it if you can please take the time to review this now,
since we would like to ensure a smoother vote this time around.
Thanks,
Neha
Fwd: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE]
Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>.
>> I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see
licenses missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
>> paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
>> sbt-launch.jar -- has 4 license files -- license,
licenses/LICENSE_Scala, licenses/LICENSE_Apache, licenses/LICENSE_JLine (2
are missing from your LICENSE)
>> hadoop -- has a unique license for the org.apache.hadoop.util.bloom.*
classes.
Seems like we need to evaluate the licenses more. I would like to ask for
help from the community in doing so.
This release has been dragging for long. Any suggestions on how we should
go forward with this ?
Thanks,
Neha
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE]
Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
To: general@incubator.apache.org
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>>> As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
> wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
> that are not in the LICENSE file.
>
> Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are tracking a
bug
> to fix all non-blocker changes to the NOTICE file for the next release.
> I will include this feedback there.
>
> Correct me if I understood the long discussions on this list, but I don't
> think this blocks the current release.
My point would be that it's very likely that your LICENSE file is incorrect
(i.e. it is missing necessary license information).
So far, the only LICENSE file changes that have been made are the explicit
issues that have been pointed out to you. I think the Kafka community needs
to review all of their artifacts and make sure that their licenses/notices
are accurately documented in the LICENSE (and NOTICE). I don't see any
evidence that the community has attempted to do this.
I think the artifacts that need to be reviewed are:
./clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/avro-1.4.0.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/hadoop-0.20.2-core.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/pig-0.8.0-core.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/piggybank.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-codec-1.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-httpclient-3.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/joda-time-1.6.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/target/scala_2.8.0/hadoop-consumer_2.8.0-0.7.0.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/avro-1.4.0.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/hadoop-0.20.2-core.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/pig-0.8.0-core.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/piggybank.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/ant-1.7.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/ant-launcher-1.7.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/asm-3.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/avro-1.4.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-lang-2.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jetty-6.1.22.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jetty-util-6.1.22.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/oro-2.0.8.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-2.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-ant-2.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-generator-2.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/qdox-1.10.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/servlet-api-2.5-20081211.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/slf4j-api-1.5.11.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/velocity-1.6.4.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/target/scala_2.8.0/hadoop-producer_2.8.0-0.7.0.jar
./core/lib/zkclient-20110412.jar
./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/zookeeper-3.3.3.jar
./core/target/scala_2.8.0/kafka-0.7.0.jar
./examples/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
./examples/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
./examples/target/scala_2.8.0/kafka-java-examples-0.7.0.jar
./kafka-0.7.0.jar
./lib/apache-rat-0.8-SNAPSHOT.jar
./lib/sbt-launch.jar
./project/boot/scala-2.8.0/lib/scala-compiler.jar
./project/boot/scala-2.8.0/lib/scala-library.jar
I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses
missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
sbt-launch.jar -- has 4 license files -- license, licenses/LICENSE_Scala,
licenses/LICENSE_Apache, licenses/LICENSE_JLine (2 are missing from your
LICENSE)
hadoop -- has a unique license for the org.apache.hadoop.util.bloom.*
classes.
I don't know how many other problems there are… I'm sorry, but I don't have
time to generate this information for you (nor should I need to). This is
something the Kafka community needs to take on.
Please note that these are just the problems that I noticed. Someone should
document the licenses (and notice files) for each of your artifacts. Then
use this information to generate Kafka LICENSE/NOTICE files using this
information.
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Well it may be frustrating, but part of the
Incubator's role here is to ferret out issues
like this that many existing ASF projects may
not completely comply with. That doesn't make
those projects models for Incubating projects
to follow unless the Incubator docs explicitly
point at those projects.
>________________________________
> From: Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 3:51 PM
>Subject: Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
>
>OK. Looking at the current Apache releases, I notice that Apache
>Abdera seems to have a pretty comprehensive NOTICE file that appears
>to cover all the files within the release: http://bit.ly/sdkbG5 Can we
>consider this to be a template for improving our own?
>
>This would also imply that there would be two NOTICE files for
>projects that release binary distributions. One for the regular
>release, and an augmented one for the binary release?
>
>Interestingly, a quick glance at the other Apache projects beginning
>with A shows that while Ant is in compliance (doesn't ship any
>external jars) and Aries has a lot of strange artifacts that I'm not
>sure how to search, all the other active A projects (4/6) of them are
>out of compliance with this rule regarding binary releases, as I
>understand it. Activemq has lots of jars (jasypt-1.7.jar,
>josql-1.5.jar, stax-1.2.0.jar, etc.) but a barebones NOTICE, archiva
>has 162 jars and only two additional notes in NOTICE, avro ships
>avro-csharp-1.6.1.tar.gz that doesn't even have a NOTICE or LICENSE
>and Axis has lots of jars (saaj.jar, wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar,
>wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar, etc.). So I hope it's clear why it's frustrating to
>have this rule suddenly pop up when it's apparently not enforced in
>the majority of cases (and then to be asked to go and open JIRAs for
>each of these projects on top of it).
>
>-Jakob
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 2, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> So I hope it's clear why it's frustrating to
> have this rule suddenly pop up when it's apparently not enforced in
> the majority of cases (and then to be asked to go and open JIRAs for
> each of these projects on top of it).
This requirement is fairly well documented, IMO. The incubator's release documentation is here -- http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
The LICENSE and NOTICE file requirements are documented here -- http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license. I don't think this should come as a big surprise...
OK. Some of that wording is too weak, IMO. "All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be included in the LICENSE document. " The "should be" is probably referring to a single LICENSE file as opposed to multiple license files in a license/ directory.
I do understand that this is a frustrating process. You have code that's ready and want to release it. Many projects going through the incubator have gone through this same pain. However, it is important, IMO.
I spend a fair amount of time on the Geronimo project. We have a lot of dependencies… http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/LICENSE
We document source and binary licenses in a single LICENSE/NOTICE file. I have seen projects maintain separate LICENSE/NOTICE files for their source and binary distributions. To be honest, I'm not sure what form is preferred. I'd be happy to see either…
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jun Rao <ju...@gmail.com>.
Could someone help take a look at this? This should be pretty simple. We
really want to proceed with the voting of the first release of Kafka.
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Thanks for giving feedback on the LICENSE and NOTICE file issues. We've
> worked on the feedback and would appreciate if you could take a look and
> see if there are no red flags.
>
> Please find the LICENSE, NOTICE files and release artifacts for the next RC
> here -
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/kafka-0.7.0-incubating-candidate-8/
>
> The relevant JIRA discussing these issues is here -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-221
>
> If there are no red flags, we'll proceed with running a vote on
> kafka-users@and later on general@incubator.
>
> Thanks,
> Neha
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:12 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > At Forrest we have stacks of supporting products to manage.
> > Each time that we decide to bundle a new one, we try to deal
> > with its license and potential notices at the time.
> >
> > Read their LICENSE. If it has a "required notice" then comply
> > by adding it to our NOTICE file. If it does not, then there
> > is no mention in our NOTICE file.
> >
> > -David
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
Thanks for giving feedback on the LICENSE and NOTICE file issues. We've
worked on the feedback and would appreciate if you could take a look and
see if there are no red flags.
Please find the LICENSE, NOTICE files and release artifacts for the next RC
here -
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/kafka-0.7.0-incubating-candidate-8/
The relevant JIRA discussing these issues is here -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-221
If there are no red flags, we'll proceed with running a vote on
kafka-users@and later on general@incubator.
Thanks,
Neha
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:12 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> At Forrest we have stacks of supporting products to manage.
> Each time that we decide to bundle a new one, we try to deal
> with its license and potential notices at the time.
>
> Read their LICENSE. If it has a "required notice" then comply
> by adding it to our NOTICE file. If it does not, then there
> is no mention in our NOTICE file.
>
> -David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
At Forrest we have stacks of supporting products to manage.
Each time that we decide to bundle a new one, we try to deal
with its license and potential notices at the time.
Read their LICENSE. If it has a "required notice" then comply
by adding it to our NOTICE file. If it does not, then there
is no mention in our NOTICE file.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>
>> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
>> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
>> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
>> work contains the Voldemort component.
>
> Hm, it does have a notice, it's pretty big/hairy:
> https://github.com/voldemort/voldemort/blob/master/NOTICE
>
> perhaps you can help me understand this a bit better, 4.4 addresses
> "Derivative Works", which afaict whirr is not:
>
> ""Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
> form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
> represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the
> purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works
> that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the
> interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof."
>
> as whirr is "merely linking to the interfaces of" the work (whirr
> pulls in the jar file of/from voldemort) and not making any
> revision/annotation/....modifications of the original. Am I not
> reading that right? (IANAL)
Perhaps I did read that wrong. The "derivative work" here being the
voldemort jar, however I still wonder about the second part related to
"excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the
Derivative Works". (the following)
>
> I also notice in 4.4 where is says "excluding those notices that do
> not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works". Given that whirr is
> only including a single jar - from voldemort itself, not
> jetty/junit/etc... would it not be correct to say that these other
> notices do not pertain to whirr's use?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll open a discussion for this on the
whirr list/jira.
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
> product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If
> you don't ship it, let's say that you call it a "System Requirement"
> or "Optional Plugin", then you don't need it.
>
>
> ALSO, more importantly, it looks like Voldemort depends on BDB Java
> Edition, which I think was discussed at length some years ago on
> legal-discuss@ but is not mentioned explicitly on
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. I think the problem is that
> it seems to demand that all downstream users must ship source code,
> i.e. some odd form of virality. Even more reasons to check with the
> Legal committee...
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>>
>>> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
>>> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
>>> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
>>> work contains the Voldemort component.
>>
>> Hm, it does have a notice, it's pretty big/hairy:
>> https://github.com/voldemort/voldemort/blob/master/NOTICE
>>
>> perhaps you can help me understand this a bit better, 4.4 addresses
>> "Derivative Works", which afaict whirr is not:
>>
>> ""Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
>> form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
>> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
>> represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the
>> purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works
>> that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the
>> interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof."
>>
>> as whirr is "merely linking to the interfaces of" the work (whirr
>> pulls in the jar file of/from voldemort) and not making any
>> revision/annotation/....modifications of the original. Am I not
>> reading that right? (IANAL)
>>
>> I also notice in 4.4 where is says "excluding those notices that do
>> not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works". Given that whirr is
>> only including a single jar - from voldemort itself, not
>> jetty/junit/etc... would it not be correct to say that these other
>> notices do not pertain to whirr's use?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If
you don't ship it, let's say that you call it a "System Requirement"
or "Optional Plugin", then you don't need it.
ALSO, more importantly, it looks like Voldemort depends on BDB Java
Edition, which I think was discussed at length some years ago on
legal-discuss@ but is not mentioned explicitly on
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. I think the problem is that
it seems to demand that all downstream users must ship source code,
i.e. some odd form of virality. Even more reasons to check with the
Legal committee...
Cheers
Niclas
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>
>> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
>> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
>> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
>> work contains the Voldemort component.
>
> Hm, it does have a notice, it's pretty big/hairy:
> https://github.com/voldemort/voldemort/blob/master/NOTICE
>
> perhaps you can help me understand this a bit better, 4.4 addresses
> "Derivative Works", which afaict whirr is not:
>
> ""Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
> form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
> represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the
> purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works
> that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the
> interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof."
>
> as whirr is "merely linking to the interfaces of" the work (whirr
> pulls in the jar file of/from voldemort) and not making any
> revision/annotation/....modifications of the original. Am I not
> reading that right? (IANAL)
>
> I also notice in 4.4 where is says "excluding those notices that do
> not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works". Given that whirr is
> only including a single jar - from voldemort itself, not
> jetty/junit/etc... would it not be correct to say that these other
> notices do not pertain to whirr's use?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Patrick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
> work contains the Voldemort component.
Hm, it does have a notice, it's pretty big/hairy:
https://github.com/voldemort/voldemort/blob/master/NOTICE
perhaps you can help me understand this a bit better, 4.4 addresses
"Derivative Works", which afaict whirr is not:
""Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the
purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works
that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the
interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof."
as whirr is "merely linking to the interfaces of" the work (whirr
pulls in the jar file of/from voldemort) and not making any
revision/annotation/....modifications of the original. Am I not
reading that right? (IANAL)
I also notice in 4.4 where is says "excluding those notices that do
not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works". Given that whirr is
only including a single jar - from voldemort itself, not
jetty/junit/etc... would it not be correct to say that these other
notices do not pertain to whirr's use?
Thanks!
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Thanks Kevan.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>
>> Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
>> is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this
>> case singular "the ASF" or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to
>> include the NOTICE file from B in the NOTICE file for A?
>
> The parties are the ASF, not the TLPs. However, that doesn't mean you can completely ignore TLP B's NOTICE file.
>
> TLP B's NOTICE file should contain the notice information for TLP B followed by the required information for B's third-party works.
>
> TLP A's NOTICE does not need to (or should not) include the notice information for TLP B (we're all part of the ASF), but TLP A's NOTICE does need to include the third-party information from TLP B's NOTICE file.
>
> Concretely, assume this is TLP B's NOTICE:
>
> Apache B
> Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed by
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> Portions of this software were developed by the Foo project at http://foo.org
>
> The portion of this NOTICE relevant to TLP A is the information about the Foo project. TLP A's NOTICE file need not mention TLP B, but does need to mention Foo (assuming your embedding of B includes Foo). If it's obvious that the Foo does not apply to your use of B (i.e. Foo is used for a C client that is not used by TLP A), then you need not mention Foo.
>
> Assuming Foo is relevant, A's NOTICE would be:
>
> Apache A
> Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed by
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> Portions of this software were developed by the Foo project at http://foo.org
>
> --kevan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
> is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this
> case singular "the ASF" or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to
> include the NOTICE file from B in the NOTICE file for A?
The parties are the ASF, not the TLPs. However, that doesn't mean you can completely ignore TLP B's NOTICE file.
TLP B's NOTICE file should contain the notice information for TLP B followed by the required information for B's third-party works.
TLP A's NOTICE does not need to (or should not) include the notice information for TLP B (we're all part of the ASF), but TLP A's NOTICE does need to include the third-party information from TLP B's NOTICE file.
Concretely, assume this is TLP B's NOTICE:
Apache B
Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
Portions of this software were developed by the Foo project at http://foo.org
The portion of this NOTICE relevant to TLP A is the information about the Foo project. TLP A's NOTICE file need not mention TLP B, but does need to mention Foo (assuming your embedding of B includes Foo). If it's obvious that the Foo does not apply to your use of B (i.e. Foo is used for a C client that is not used by TLP A), then you need not mention Foo.
Assuming Foo is relevant, A's NOTICE would be:
Apache A
Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
Portions of this software were developed by the Foo project at http://foo.org
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
I've opened a couple LEGAL jiras on this stuff to nail it down:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-118
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-119
Thanks all!
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>>
>>> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
>>> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
>>> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
>>> work contains the Voldemort component.
>>
>> Not IMHO… ;-) If a NOTICE file is absent, ALv2 does not require any action. Most projects, that I'm aware of, do not create attributions in the NOTICE for 3rd party artifacts that are not explicitly required by the 3rd party license. If the Voldemort project wants an attribution, they should create a NOTICE file.
>>
>> If an apache project wants to create an unnecessary attribution, I'd let them (i.e. I wouldn't -1 the release)… Some people may feel more strongly on this matter… IMO, this does not need to be policy. Rather, it's a decision a project can make on it's own…
>>
>
> Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
> is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this
> case singular "the ASF" or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to
> include the NOTICE file from B in the NOTICE file for A?
>
> Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>>
>> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
>> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
>> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
>> work contains the Voldemort component.
>
> Not IMHO… ;-) If a NOTICE file is absent, ALv2 does not require any action. Most projects, that I'm aware of, do not create attributions in the NOTICE for 3rd party artifacts that are not explicitly required by the 3rd party license. If the Voldemort project wants an attribution, they should create a NOTICE file.
>
> If an apache project wants to create an unnecessary attribution, I'd let them (i.e. I wouldn't -1 the release)… Some people may feel more strongly on this matter… IMO, this does not need to be policy. Rather, it's a decision a project can make on it's own…
>
Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this
case singular "the ASF" or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to
include the NOTICE file from B in the NOTICE file for A?
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
> See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
> If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
> If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
> work contains the Voldemort component.
Not IMHO… ;-) If a NOTICE file is absent, ALv2 does not require any action. Most projects, that I'm aware of, do not create attributions in the NOTICE for 3rd party artifacts that are not explicitly required by the 3rd party license. If the Voldemort project wants an attribution, they should create a NOTICE file.
If an apache project wants to create an unnecessary attribution, I'd let them (i.e. I wouldn't -1 the release)… Some people may feel more strongly on this matter… IMO, this does not need to be policy. Rather, it's a decision a project can make on it's own…
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
See paragraph 4.4 of Apache License ver 2.0.
If Voldemort contains a NOTICE file, then it must be carried forward.
If it doesn't, IMHO you should have an entry in NOTICE that says the
work contains the Voldemort component.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
>> Copyright Notice Policy [2]
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
> As someone trying to generate these documents, I'm actually finding
> these to be poor examples when trying to see what should and should
> not be in NOTICE. On
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice, under NOTICE
> file, there is "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for
> required third-party notices." with a link to "What Are Required
> Third-party Notices?" However, this text doesn't talk about NOTICE,
> but LICENSE: Apache releases should contain a copy of each license,
> usually contained in the LICENSE document.
>
> And the httpd NOTICE doesn't provide many examples (there are only
> three non-Apache items listed). These don't answer questions such as:
> Do other Apache projects need to be listed in NOTICE as well (which
> was answered in the email exchange above, but as such won't of much
> use to the next Podling that comes along), or Do other Apache projects
> need to be noted in the LICENSE file (not answered here, that I can
> see), or How to include reference 3rd party jars in the LICENSE file
> that are also Apache 2.0 licensed?
>
> Casting about for an example more relevant, I come across Whirr's 0.4
> release, which was +1'ed from Incubator and take a look at its
> NOTICE.txt (from
> http://people.apache.org/~asavu/whirr-0.4.0-incubating-candidate-2/):
> Apache Whirr
> Copyright 2010-2011 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> And then the jars that are included in the source distribution:
> ./services/cassandra/lib/apache-cassandra-0.7.0.jar
> ./services/cassandra/lib/libthrift-0.5.jar
> ./services/hadoop/lib/hadoop-test-0.20.3-SNAPSHOT.jar
> ./services/voldemort/lib/linkedin-voldemort-0.90.RC3.jar
>
> Voldemort was not developed at the ASF and isn't listed in NOTICE.
> This candidate was +1ed and released. Was this in error?
Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
> There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
> Copyright Notice Policy [2]
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
As someone trying to generate these documents, I'm actually finding
these to be poor examples when trying to see what should and should
not be in NOTICE. On
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice, under NOTICE
file, there is "The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for
required third-party notices." with a link to "What Are Required
Third-party Notices?" However, this text doesn't talk about NOTICE,
but LICENSE: Apache releases should contain a copy of each license,
usually contained in the LICENSE document.
And the httpd NOTICE doesn't provide many examples (there are only
three non-Apache items listed). These don't answer questions such as:
Do other Apache projects need to be listed in NOTICE as well (which
was answered in the email exchange above, but as such won't of much
use to the next Podling that comes along), or Do other Apache projects
need to be noted in the LICENSE file (not answered here, that I can
see), or How to include reference 3rd party jars in the LICENSE file
that are also Apache 2.0 licensed?
Casting about for an example more relevant, I come across Whirr's 0.4
release, which was +1'ed from Incubator and take a look at its
NOTICE.txt (from
http://people.apache.org/~asavu/whirr-0.4.0-incubating-candidate-2/):
Apache Whirr
Copyright 2010-2011 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
And then the jars that are included in the source distribution:
./services/cassandra/lib/apache-cassandra-0.7.0.jar
./services/cassandra/lib/libthrift-0.5.jar
./services/hadoop/lib/hadoop-test-0.20.3-SNAPSHOT.jar
./services/voldemort/lib/linkedin-voldemort-0.90.RC3.jar
Voldemort was not developed at the ASF and isn't listed in NOTICE.
This candidate was +1ed and released. Was this in error?
Regardless, I've made an honest attempt to build the NOTICE and
LICENSE files necessary for a source release based on bringing most of
the jars in via Maven at KAFKA-221
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-221) and would very much
appreciate a quick look at that to see if it's correct, before we call
another vote.
-Jakob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 December 2011 20:51, Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. Looking at the current Apache releases, I notice that Apache
> Abdera seems to have a pretty comprehensive NOTICE file that appears
> to cover all the files within the release: http://bit.ly/sdkbG5 Can we
> consider this to be a template for improving our own?
No, that NOTICE file is a very bad example to follow.
It has a spurious header:
// ------------------------------------------------------------------
// NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4d of The Apache License,
// Version 2.0, in this case for Apache Abdera
// ------------------------------------------------------------------
and also includes lots of unnecessary stuff, for example
This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'Apache Software
Foundation' (http://jakarta.apache.org/
The NOTICE file is only for *included* software; and only for non-ASF
software because ASF code is included by
the following paragraph, which is supposed to follow the product name header.
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
It looks like the NOTICE file was autogenerated by an old version of
Maven plugin (because of the bad header) and not reviewed.
There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
Copyright Notice Policy [2]
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> This would also imply that there would be two NOTICE files for
> projects that release binary distributions. One for the regular
> release, and an augmented one for the binary release?
>
> Interestingly, a quick glance at the other Apache projects beginning
> with A shows that while Ant is in compliance (doesn't ship any
> external jars) and Aries has a lot of strange artifacts that I'm not
> sure how to search, all the other active A projects (4/6) of them are
> out of compliance with this rule regarding binary releases, as I
> understand it. Activemq has lots of jars (jasypt-1.7.jar,
> josql-1.5.jar, stax-1.2.0.jar, etc.) but a barebones NOTICE, archiva
> has 162 jars and only two additional notes in NOTICE, avro ships
> avro-csharp-1.6.1.tar.gz that doesn't even have a NOTICE or LICENSE
> and Axis has lots of jars (saaj.jar, wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar,
> wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar, etc.). So I hope it's clear why it's frustrating to
> have this rule suddenly pop up when it's apparently not enforced in
> the majority of cases (and then to be asked to go and open JIRAs for
> each of these projects on top of it).
>
> -Jakob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
OK. Looking at the current Apache releases, I notice that Apache
Abdera seems to have a pretty comprehensive NOTICE file that appears
to cover all the files within the release: http://bit.ly/sdkbG5 Can we
consider this to be a template for improving our own?
This would also imply that there would be two NOTICE files for
projects that release binary distributions. One for the regular
release, and an augmented one for the binary release?
Interestingly, a quick glance at the other Apache projects beginning
with A shows that while Ant is in compliance (doesn't ship any
external jars) and Aries has a lot of strange artifacts that I'm not
sure how to search, all the other active A projects (4/6) of them are
out of compliance with this rule regarding binary releases, as I
understand it. Activemq has lots of jars (jasypt-1.7.jar,
josql-1.5.jar, stax-1.2.0.jar, etc.) but a barebones NOTICE, archiva
has 162 jars and only two additional notes in NOTICE, avro ships
avro-csharp-1.6.1.tar.gz that doesn't even have a NOTICE or LICENSE
and Axis has lots of jars (saaj.jar, wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar,
wsdl4j-1.5.1.jar, etc.). So I hope it's clear why it's frustrating to
have this rule suddenly pop up when it's apparently not enforced in
the majority of cases (and then to be asked to go and open JIRAs for
each of these projects on top of it).
-Jakob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
>>> kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
>>> built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
>>> includes quite a few jars that are not included in the source tree
>>> since binary distributions do include transitive dependencies. Are
>>> you saying that entries need to be included in NOTICE and LICENSE for
>>> jars/dlls that are included in binary releases?
>>
>> Yes, see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts
>>
>> If properly tracking the licenses of all the dependencies included in
>> such a composite artifact is too much effort, you can always *not*
>> publish the artifact. Just leave it up to downstream users to compile
>> it and thus have them take over responsibility of properly managing
>> the licensing status in case they want to redistribute the resulting
>> artifacts.
>
> Or publish the binary versions of our source only, and leave it to
> users to download the dependencies.
>
> It's vitally important that the users are made aware of the licensing
> requirements for everything we publish.
+1
Tracking licensing for applications composed from hundreds of
components is non-trivial, and - without build support - is a *lot* of
work. This is just one key service provided by a healthy downstream
ecosystem. But unless consumers can download and get started, this
ecosystem may be slow to grow.
The approach - inspired by Lean and Continuous Delivery - we're trying
over the James and Whisker is to extend the release pipeline. Separate
concerns about the official release of source and components from
those about assembling an official application from those component an
the other dependencies required. Release first the source and
components, and then work on an application release from those
components.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
>>> kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
>>> built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
>>> includes quite a few jars that are not included in the source tree
>>> since binary distributions do include transitive dependencies. Are
>>> you saying that entries need to be included in NOTICE and LICENSE for
>>> jars/dlls that are included in binary releases?
>>
>> Yes, see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts
>>
>> If properly tracking the licenses of all the dependencies included in
>> such a composite artifact is too much effort, you can always *not*
>> publish the artifact. Just leave it up to downstream users to compile
>> it and thus have them take over responsibility of properly managing
>> the licensing status in case they want to redistribute the resulting
>> artifacts.
>
> Or publish the binary versions of our source only, and leave it to
> users to download the dependencies.
>
> It's vitally important that the users are made aware of the licensing
> requirements for everything we publish.
+1
Tracking licensing for applications composed from hundreds of
components is non-trivial, and - without build support - is a *lot* of
work. This is just one key service provided by a healthy downstream
ecosystem. But unless consumers can download and get started, this
ecosystem may be slow to grow.
The approach - inspired by Lean and Continuous Delivery - we're trying
over the James and Whisker is to extend the release pipeline. Separate
concerns about the official release of source and components from
those about assembling an official application from those component an
the other dependencies required. Release first the source and
components, and then work on an application release from those
components.
Robert
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
>> kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
>> built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
>> includes quite a few jars that are not included in the source tree
>> since binary distributions do include transitive dependencies. Are
>> you saying that entries need to be included in NOTICE and LICENSE for
>> jars/dlls that are included in binary releases?
>
> Yes, see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts
>
> If properly tracking the licenses of all the dependencies included in
> such a composite artifact is too much effort, you can always *not*
> publish the artifact. Just leave it up to downstream users to compile
> it and thus have them take over responsibility of properly managing
> the licensing status in case they want to redistribute the resulting
> artifacts.
Or publish the binary versions of our source only, and leave it to
users to download the dependencies.
It's vitally important that the users are made aware of the licensing
requirements for everything we publish.
>> A quick check shows that neither Hadoop, nor HBase. nor Whirr
>> (recently with a an incubator release) do not do this.
>
> Then these projects have some work to do. Can you file issues with
> these projects referring the above link and this email thread?
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
> kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
> built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
> includes quite a few jars that are not included in the source tree
> since binary distributions do include transitive dependencies. Are
> you saying that entries need to be included in NOTICE and LICENSE for
> jars/dlls that are included in binary releases?
Yes, see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts
If properly tracking the licenses of all the dependencies included in
such a composite artifact is too much effort, you can always *not*
publish the artifact. Just leave it up to downstream users to compile
it and thus have them take over responsibility of properly managing
the licensing status in case they want to redistribute the resulting
artifacts.
> A quick check shows that neither Hadoop, nor HBase. nor Whirr
> (recently with a an incubator release) do not do this.
Then these projects have some work to do. Can you file issues with
these projects referring the above link and this email thread?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
Kevan-
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
includes quite a few jars that are not included in the source tree
since binary distributions do include transitive dependencies. Are
you saying that entries need to be included in NOTICE and LICENSE for
jars/dlls that are included in binary releases? A quick check shows
that neither Hadoop, nor HBase. nor Whirr (recently with a an
incubator release) do not do this.
If the answer is yes, then it looks like everyone (from my quick
sample) is out of compliance. If the answer is no, then it looks like
the only libraries that need to be included are those that are
checkedin/included-in-a-source release, which is on the order of 17,
but can be decreased down to four or five if Hadoop is brought in via
sbt/maven.
Thanks,
Jakob
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:33 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 December 2011 21:58, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
>>>
>>> paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
>>
>> The link you reference puts this jar in the public domain and no
>> LICENSE update is required.
>
> It should still be listed for completeness, otherwise reviewers (and
> possibly users) will ask the same question again.
>
>>> sbt-launch.jar -- has 4 license files -- license, licenses/LICENSE_Scala, licenses/LICENSE_Apache, licenses/LICENSE_JLine (2 are missing from your LICENSE)
>>> hadoop -- has a unique license for the org.apache.hadoop.util.bloom.* classes.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing these out. I'm certain that no project with lots
>> of dependencies updates its LICENSE every time it takes an update. One
>
> The Apache projects I know that include 3rd party jars do update the
> LICENSE (& NOTICE if reqd) file every time a new library is included
> in the distribution.
> It's really not difficult.
>
> Before deciding to use a 3rd party jar, the project needs to establish
> the license anyway, and check it is acceptable.
> All the required information is then to hand for updating the N&L files.
>
> For podlings there is a catch-up, but again that must be done *before*
> a release is made, because a release must only include code under
> allowable licenses.
>
>> gets around this by downloading dependencies rather than distributing
>> them?
>
> Yes, that can eliminate some of the work.
> However, there are still some requirements for non-included dependencies.
> See http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
>>> I don't know how many other problems there are… I'm sorry, but I don't have time to generate this information for you (nor should I need to). This is something the Kafka community needs to take on.
>>
>> Thanks for what you've offered.
>>
>> Many of the jars contain LICENSE files. Before spending hours crawling
>> through every dependency, can someone point to the documentation
>> requiring that the top-level LICENSE file contain the transitive
>> closure of all code redistributed through the artifact? -C
>
> You only need to establish the license for direct dependencies, but
> they do need to be in the one file.
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
>
> The podling only has to do this once for each dependency.
> It may be tedious, but it is necessary, not least so that the end
> users (and the release reviewers!) have all the necessary details to
> hand.
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 December 2011 21:58, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
>>
>> paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
>
> The link you reference puts this jar in the public domain and no
> LICENSE update is required.
It should still be listed for completeness, otherwise reviewers (and
possibly users) will ask the same question again.
>> sbt-launch.jar -- has 4 license files -- license, licenses/LICENSE_Scala, licenses/LICENSE_Apache, licenses/LICENSE_JLine (2 are missing from your LICENSE)
>> hadoop -- has a unique license for the org.apache.hadoop.util.bloom.* classes.
>
> Thanks for pointing these out. I'm certain that no project with lots
> of dependencies updates its LICENSE every time it takes an update. One
The Apache projects I know that include 3rd party jars do update the
LICENSE (& NOTICE if reqd) file every time a new library is included
in the distribution.
It's really not difficult.
Before deciding to use a 3rd party jar, the project needs to establish
the license anyway, and check it is acceptable.
All the required information is then to hand for updating the N&L files.
For podlings there is a catch-up, but again that must be done *before*
a release is made, because a release must only include code under
allowable licenses.
> gets around this by downloading dependencies rather than distributing
> them?
Yes, that can eliminate some of the work.
However, there are still some requirements for non-included dependencies.
See http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> I don't know how many other problems there are… I'm sorry, but I don't have time to generate this information for you (nor should I need to). This is something the Kafka community needs to take on.
>
> Thanks for what you've offered.
>
> Many of the jars contain LICENSE files. Before spending hours crawling
> through every dependency, can someone point to the documentation
> requiring that the top-level LICENSE file contain the transitive
> closure of all code redistributed through the artifact? -C
You only need to establish the license for direct dependencies, but
they do need to be in the one file.
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
The podling only has to do this once for each dependency.
It may be tedious, but it is necessary, not least so that the end
users (and the release reviewers!) have all the necessary details to
hand.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
>
> paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
The link you reference puts this jar in the public domain and no
LICENSE update is required.
> sbt-launch.jar -- has 4 license files -- license, licenses/LICENSE_Scala, licenses/LICENSE_Apache, licenses/LICENSE_JLine (2 are missing from your LICENSE)
> hadoop -- has a unique license for the org.apache.hadoop.util.bloom.* classes.
Thanks for pointing these out. I'm certain that no project with lots
of dependencies updates its LICENSE every time it takes an update. One
gets around this by downloading dependencies rather than distributing
them?
> I don't know how many other problems there are… I'm sorry, but I don't have time to generate this information for you (nor should I need to). This is something the Kafka community needs to take on.
Thanks for what you've offered.
Many of the jars contain LICENSE files. Before spending hours crawling
through every dependency, can someone point to the documentation
requiring that the top-level LICENSE file contain the transitive
closure of all code redistributed through the artifact? -C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does Apache has tools (like rat) to extract all the needed license? Digging
> out the license manually is both labour intensive and error prone.
The rat community has started working on whisker[1] (and some other
tools) but we really need more volunteers to step forward and start
contributing to the development. Some other tools have also been
seeded recently (eye and tentacles) but we need volunteers to step
forward to document and polish them for a wider audience.
Robert
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/rat/whisker/trunk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jun Rao <ju...@gmail.com>.
Does Apache has tools (like rat) to extract all the needed license? Digging
out the license manually is both labour intensive and error prone.
Thanks,
Jun
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
> >>> As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
> > wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
> > that are not in the LICENSE file.
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are tracking a
> bug
> > to fix all non-blocker changes to the NOTICE file for the next release.
> > I will include this feedback there.
> >
> > Correct me if I understood the long discussions on this list, but I don't
> > think this blocks the current release.
>
> My point would be that it's very likely that your LICENSE file is
> incorrect (i.e. it is missing necessary license information).
>
> So far, the only LICENSE file changes that have been made are the explicit
> issues that have been pointed out to you. I think the Kafka community needs
> to review all of their artifacts and make sure that their licenses/notices
> are accurately documented in the LICENSE (and NOTICE). I don't see any
> evidence that the community has attempted to do this.
>
> I think the artifacts that need to be reviewed are:
>
> ./clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/avro-1.4.0.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/hadoop-0.20.2-core.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/pig-0.8.0-core.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/piggybank.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-codec-1.2.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-httpclient-3.1.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/joda-time-1.6.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/target/scala_2.8.0/hadoop-consumer_2.8.0-0.7.0.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/avro-1.4.0.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/hadoop-0.20.2-core.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/pig-0.8.0-core.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/piggybank.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/ant-1.7.1.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/ant-launcher-1.7.1.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/asm-3.2.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/avro-1.4.1.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-lang-2.5.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jetty-6.1.22.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jetty-util-6.1.22.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/oro-2.0.8.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-2.2.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-ant-2.2.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-generator-2.2.jar
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/qdox-1.10.1.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/servlet-api-2.5-20081211.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/slf4j-api-1.5.11.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/velocity-1.6.4.jar
>
> ./contrib/hadoop-producer/target/scala_2.8.0/hadoop-producer_2.8.0-0.7.0.jar
> ./core/lib/zkclient-20110412.jar
> ./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
> ./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
> ./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/zookeeper-3.3.3.jar
> ./core/target/scala_2.8.0/kafka-0.7.0.jar
> ./examples/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
> ./examples/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
> ./examples/target/scala_2.8.0/kafka-java-examples-0.7.0.jar
> ./kafka-0.7.0.jar
> ./lib/apache-rat-0.8-SNAPSHOT.jar
> ./lib/sbt-launch.jar
> ./project/boot/scala-2.8.0/lib/scala-compiler.jar
> ./project/boot/scala-2.8.0/lib/scala-library.jar
>
> I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses
> missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
>
> paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
> sbt-launch.jar -- has 4 license files -- license, licenses/LICENSE_Scala,
> licenses/LICENSE_Apache, licenses/LICENSE_JLine (2 are missing from your
> LICENSE)
> hadoop -- has a unique license for the org.apache.hadoop.util.bloom.*
> classes.
>
> I don't know how many other problems there are… I'm sorry, but I don't
> have time to generate this information for you (nor should I need to). This
> is something the Kafka community needs to take on.
>
> Please note that these are just the problems that I noticed. Someone
> should document the licenses (and notice files) for each of your artifacts.
> Then use this information to generate Kafka LICENSE/NOTICE files using this
> information.
>
> --kevan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>>> As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
> wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
> that are not in the LICENSE file.
>
> Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are tracking a bug
> to fix all non-blocker changes to the NOTICE file for the next release.
> I will include this feedback there.
>
> Correct me if I understood the long discussions on this list, but I don't
> think this blocks the current release.
My point would be that it's very likely that your LICENSE file is incorrect (i.e. it is missing necessary license information).
So far, the only LICENSE file changes that have been made are the explicit issues that have been pointed out to you. I think the Kafka community needs to review all of their artifacts and make sure that their licenses/notices are accurately documented in the LICENSE (and NOTICE). I don't see any evidence that the community has attempted to do this.
I think the artifacts that need to be reviewed are:
./clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/avro-1.4.0.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/hadoop-0.20.2-core.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/pig-0.8.0-core.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/piggybank.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-codec-1.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-httpclient-3.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/joda-time-1.6.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
./contrib/hadoop-consumer/target/scala_2.8.0/hadoop-consumer_2.8.0-0.7.0.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/avro-1.4.0.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/hadoop-0.20.2-core.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/pig-0.8.0-core.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/piggybank.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/ant-1.7.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/ant-launcher-1.7.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/asm-3.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/avro-1.4.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/commons-lang-2.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jetty-6.1.22.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jetty-util-6.1.22.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/oro-2.0.8.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-2.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-ant-2.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/paranamer-generator-2.2.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/qdox-1.10.1.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/servlet-api-2.5-20081211.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/slf4j-api-1.5.11.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/velocity-1.6.4.jar
./contrib/hadoop-producer/target/scala_2.8.0/hadoop-producer_2.8.0-0.7.0.jar
./core/lib/zkclient-20110412.jar
./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
./core/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/zookeeper-3.3.3.jar
./core/target/scala_2.8.0/kafka-0.7.0.jar
./examples/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/jopt-simple-3.2.jar
./examples/lib_managed/scala_2.8.0/compile/log4j-1.2.15.jar
./examples/target/scala_2.8.0/kafka-java-examples-0.7.0.jar
./kafka-0.7.0.jar
./lib/apache-rat-0.8-SNAPSHOT.jar
./lib/sbt-launch.jar
./project/boot/scala-2.8.0/lib/scala-compiler.jar
./project/boot/scala-2.8.0/lib/scala-library.jar
I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
sbt-launch.jar -- has 4 license files -- license, licenses/LICENSE_Scala, licenses/LICENSE_Apache, licenses/LICENSE_JLine (2 are missing from your LICENSE)
hadoop -- has a unique license for the org.apache.hadoop.util.bloom.* classes.
I don't know how many other problems there are… I'm sorry, but I don't have time to generate this information for you (nor should I need to). This is something the Kafka community needs to take on.
Please note that these are just the problems that I noticed. Someone should document the licenses (and notice files) for each of your artifacts. Then use this information to generate Kafka LICENSE/NOTICE files using this information.
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>.
>> As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
that are not in the LICENSE file.
Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are tracking a bug
to fix all non-blocker changes to the NOTICE file for the next release.
I will include this feedback there.
Correct me if I understood the long discussions on this list, but I don't
think this blocks the current release.
>> Add a header line before the additional licenses to say what they are
for.
We have the header for MIT and Nunit license. Didn't include it for the
SCALA license for a project that is written in scala. Also didn't include
it for the Apache license for an Apache incubator project.
Hope that sounds reasonable.
Thanks,
Neha
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:43 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 December 2011 02:29, Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
> > and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
>
> There are spurious "===" lines at the top of the file; these must be
> removed.
>
> > http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
>
> All license for 3rd party products should be present in the LICENSE file.
> If the identical license is shared between several products, there's
> only need to add it once.
> Add a header line before the additional licenses to say what they are for.
>
> For example:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
>
> For 3rd party products under AL 2.0, add a list at the end of the AL
> license text, before any other licenses.
>
> As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
> wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
> that are not in the LICENSE file.
>
> And neither should mention code that is not actually included in the
> release artifacts.
>
> > The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
> >
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/hntuhwkbazwlfdoe?q=Kafka+list:org.apache.incubator.general
> >
> > We would appreciate it if you can please take the time to review this
> now,
> > since we would like to ensure a smoother vote this time around.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Neha
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 December 2011 02:29, Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
> and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
There are spurious "===" lines at the top of the file; these must be removed.
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
All license for 3rd party products should be present in the LICENSE file.
If the identical license is shared between several products, there's
only need to add it once.
Add a header line before the additional licenses to say what they are for.
For example:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
For 3rd party products under AL 2.0, add a list at the end of the AL
license text, before any other licenses.
As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
that are not in the LICENSE file.
And neither should mention code that is not actually included in the
release artifacts.
> The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/hntuhwkbazwlfdoe?q=Kafka+list:org.apache.incubator.general
>
> We would appreciate it if you can please take the time to review this now,
> since we would like to ensure a smoother vote this time around.
>
> Thanks,
> Neha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I notice that the NOTICE has this incomplete statement:
This product includes the scala runtime and compiler
(www.scala-lang.org) developed by EPFL, which includes
the following license:
There is not any following license.
I also notice that the LICENSE file has copyright notices.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Neha Narkhede [mailto:neha.narkhede@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 18:30
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: kafka-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Hi,
The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
http://apache.markmail.org/message/hntuhwkbazwlfdoe?q=Kafka+list:org.apache.incubator.general
We would appreciate it if you can please take the time to review this now,
since we would like to ensure a smoother vote this time around.
Thanks,
Neha
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>.
Also, we haven't ignored the fact that the NOTICE file must ideally be as
short as possible.
To track this issue, we've filed a bug -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-219 and will be fixing it for
the next release.
Thanks,
Neha
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
> and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
>
> The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/hntuhwkbazwlfdoe?q=Kafka+list:org.apache.incubator.general
>
> We would appreciate it if you can please take the time to review this now,
> since we would like to ensure a smoother vote this time around.
>
> Thanks,
> Neha
>
>
Re: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>.
Also, we haven't ignored the fact that the NOTICE file must ideally be as
short as possible.
To track this issue, we've filed a bug -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-219 and will be fixing it for
the next release.
Thanks,
Neha
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
> and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
>
> The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/hntuhwkbazwlfdoe?q=Kafka+list:org.apache.incubator.general
>
> We would appreciate it if you can please take the time to review this now,
> since we would like to ensure a smoother vote this time around.
>
> Thanks,
> Neha
>
>