You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Jarek Potiuk (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2021/05/18 08:32:00 UTC
[jira] [Comment Edited] (LEGAL-574) Can we release vendored-in
Apache 2.0-licensed code without mentioning it in LICENSE
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17346695#comment-17346695 ]
Jarek Potiuk edited comment on LEGAL-574 at 5/18/21, 8:31 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks [~jmclean]. Very helpful. I will double-check the conexion licence.
Just to clarify - if we just miss header in ONE one-line file (which is just configuration) - would that be "next release" thing or -1 ? (https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/15908/files#diff-0b7e9bfeca85a0d2a95dabacff36b936a04b0d2631719d647146dbfe108e0f85R18)
was (Author: higrys):
Thanks [~jmclean]. Very helpful. I will double-check the conexion licence.
Just to clarify - if we just miss header in ONE one-line file (which is just configuration) - would that be "next release" thing or -1 ?
> Can we release vendored-in Apache 2.0-licensed code without mentioning it in LICENSE
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-574
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-574
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Jarek Potiuk
> Priority: Major
>
> Question: Can we release Airflow 2.1 source package where in LICENSE file we missed link to licence to a vendored-in dependency ? (the license of the vendored-in dependency itself is included)?
>
> We are about to release Airflow 2.1 (rc1 is out yesterday) and we vendored in `connexion` dependency in order to remove `requests` dependency (following https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-572 discussion).
> We've added the full text of the licence to "licenses" folder: [https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/licenses/LICENSE-connexion.txt]
> but we forgot to add the line referring to it (See the PR that adds the missing line afterwards:
> [https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/15906/files)]
> The release policy states ([https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-file])
> ??When a package bundles code under several licenses, the {{LICENSE}} file MUST contain details of all these licenses. For each component which is not Apache licensed, details of the component MUST be appended to the {{LICENSE}} file. The component license itself MUST either be appended or else stored elsewhere in the package with a pointer to it from the {{LICENSE}} file, e.g. if the license is long.??
> It's a bit ambiguous, we are not sure if this "component which is not Apache licensed" refers to:
> # component which is not licensed by the Apache Software Foundation or
> # component which is not licensed under Apache 2.0 license
> In case 1. we probably cannot release it , in case 2. we probably can (the connexion dependency uses Apache 2.0 license).
> We are likely going to re-relase rc2 anyway, because of another problem (one non-generated file missed the licence header) [https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/15908] but it would be great to clarify this for the future - and maybe make the policy a bit less ambiguous).
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org