You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@impala.apache.org by Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> on 2016/09/12 16:38:25 UTC
Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell, in a
GPL way:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.git;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b7079026e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to remove
the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
Thanks for your help,
Jim
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
If you want to broach the topic again, it might be useful to point them
to the autoconf configuration file exception, since they want to coexist
and still remain planted in the GNU GPL universe;
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/exceptions.en.html
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#can-we-use-
> doxygen-generated-config-files
>
> Seems to resolve it for now. I'll strip the doxyfile of all those helpful
> comments. Maybe one day this will be resolved by the doxygen authors.
>
> Thanks for your help, Todd and Ryan!
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
>> documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
>> doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
>> intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
>> license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with all
>> of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get with
>> the generated file.
>>
>> rb
>>
>>
>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
>> [2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to
>> add a
>> > header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
>> > licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
>> >
>> > -Todd
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
>> >> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell,
>> in
>> >> a
>> >> GPL way:
>> >>
>> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
>> >> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
>> >> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
>> >> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
>> >>
>> >> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to
>> remove
>> >> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your help,
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Todd Lipcon
>> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Netflix
>>
>
>
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
If you want to broach the topic again, it might be useful to point them
to the autoconf configuration file exception, since they want to coexist
and still remain planted in the GNU GPL universe;
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/exceptions.en.html
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#can-we-use-
> doxygen-generated-config-files
>
> Seems to resolve it for now. I'll strip the doxyfile of all those helpful
> comments. Maybe one day this will be resolved by the doxygen authors.
>
> Thanks for your help, Todd and Ryan!
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
>> documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
>> doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
>> intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
>> license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with all
>> of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get with
>> the generated file.
>>
>> rb
>>
>>
>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
>> [2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to
>> add a
>> > header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
>> > licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
>> >
>> > -Todd
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
>> >> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell,
>> in
>> >> a
>> >> GPL way:
>> >>
>> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
>> >> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
>> >> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
>> >> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
>> >>
>> >> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to
>> remove
>> >> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your help,
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Todd Lipcon
>> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Blue
>> Software Engineer
>> Netflix
>>
>
>
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>.
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#can-we-use-doxygen-generated-config-files
Seems to resolve it for now. I'll strip the doxyfile of all those helpful
comments. Maybe one day this will be resolved by the doxygen authors.
Thanks for your help, Todd and Ryan!
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
wrote:
> We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
> documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
> doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
> intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
> license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with all
> of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get with
> the generated file.
>
> rb
>
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
> [2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to add
> a
> > header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
> > licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
> >> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell,
> in
> >> a
> >> GPL way:
> >>
> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
> >> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
> >> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
> >>
> >> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
> >> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
> >>
> >> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to
> remove
> >> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your help,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>.
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#can-we-use-doxygen-generated-config-files
Seems to resolve it for now. I'll strip the doxyfile of all those helpful
comments. Maybe one day this will be resolved by the doxygen authors.
Thanks for your help, Todd and Ryan!
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
wrote:
> We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
> documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
> doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
> intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
> license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with all
> of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get with
> the generated file.
>
> rb
>
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
> [2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to add
> a
> > header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
> > licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
> >> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell,
> in
> >> a
> >> GPL way:
> >>
> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
> >> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
> >> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
> >>
> >> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
> >> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
> >>
> >> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to
> remove
> >> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your help,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Alexey Serbin <as...@cloudera.com>.
Yes, exactly -- the client_api.footer.in file.
Thanks for clarifying on this!
Best regards,
Alexey
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Alexey Serbin <as...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > Thank you for spotting the issue.
> >
> > Yep, we keep the directives which we changed to non-default value(s).
> >
> > For those, I used those auto-generated comments and added some
> description
> > explaining the reason for overriding.
> >
> > I'll remove the auto-generated part from those comments. Will send a
> patch
> > for review in a moment.
> >
> > BTW, could somebody assess the footer of the auto-generated docs? We
> have
> > an Apache copyright there along with 'Generated by Doxygen ...'. It
> might
> > make sense to verify that we are OK there as well.
> >
>
> You mean docs/support/doxygen/client_api.footer.in right? I was just in
> the
> process of adding it to the RAT exclude list.
>
> I don't think this one's problematic. Doxygen explicitly states that the
> generated docs are licensed the same as the source used to generate them.
>
> -Todd
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alexey
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It looks like this licensing question may affect us too. Alexey, did
> you
> > > use the same generaotr/template to create our doxygen config files?
> Maybe
> > > we should remove some of the comments to be sure we're on the right
> side
> > of
> > > the licensing before our 1.0 release?
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
> > > Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
> > > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > > Cc: "dev@impala" <de...@impala.incubator.apache.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
> > > documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
> > > doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
> > > intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
> > > license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with
> > all
> > > of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get
> > with
> > > the generated file.
> > >
> > > rb
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
> > > [2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to
> > add
> > > a
> > > > header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
> > > > licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
> > > >
> > > > -Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes
> substantial
> > > >> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can
> tell,
> > > in
> > > >> a
> > > >> GPL way:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
> > > >> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
> > > >> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
> > > >>
> > > >> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
> > > >> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
> > > >>
> > > >> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to
> > > remove
> > > >> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for your help,
> > > >> Jim
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Todd Lipcon
> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Blue
> > > Software Engineer
> > > Netflix
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd Lipcon
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Alexey Serbin <as...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Todd,
>
> Thank you for spotting the issue.
>
> Yep, we keep the directives which we changed to non-default value(s).
>
> For those, I used those auto-generated comments and added some description
> explaining the reason for overriding.
>
> I'll remove the auto-generated part from those comments. Will send a patch
> for review in a moment.
>
> BTW, could somebody assess the footer of the auto-generated docs? We have
> an Apache copyright there along with 'Generated by Doxygen ...'. It might
> make sense to verify that we are OK there as well.
>
You mean docs/support/doxygen/client_api.footer.in right? I was just in the
process of adding it to the RAT exclude list.
I don't think this one's problematic. Doxygen explicitly states that the
generated docs are licensed the same as the source used to generate them.
-Todd
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexey
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks like this licensing question may affect us too. Alexey, did you
> > use the same generaotr/template to create our doxygen config files? Maybe
> > we should remove some of the comments to be sure we're on the right side
> of
> > the licensing before our 1.0 release?
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
> > Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Cc: "dev@impala" <de...@impala.incubator.apache.org>
> >
> >
> > We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
> > documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
> > doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
> > intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
> > license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with
> all
> > of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get
> with
> > the generated file.
> >
> > rb
> >
> >
> > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
> > [2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to
> add
> > a
> > > header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
> > > licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
> > >> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell,
> > in
> > >> a
> > >> GPL way:
> > >>
> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
> > >> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
> > >> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
> > >> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
> > >>
> > >> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to
> > remove
> > >> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your help,
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd Lipcon
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Blue
> > Software Engineer
> > Netflix
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Alexey Serbin <as...@cloudera.com>.
Todd,
Thank you for spotting the issue.
Yep, we keep the directives which we changed to non-default value(s).
For those, I used those auto-generated comments and added some description
explaining the reason for overriding.
I'll remove the auto-generated part from those comments. Will send a patch
for review in a moment.
BTW, could somebody assess the footer of the auto-generated docs? We have
an Apache copyright there along with 'Generated by Doxygen ...'. It might
make sense to verify that we are OK there as well.
Thanks,
Alexey
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> It looks like this licensing question may affect us too. Alexey, did you
> use the same generaotr/template to create our doxygen config files? Maybe
> we should remove some of the comments to be sure we're on the right side of
> the licensing before our 1.0 release?
>
> -Todd
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
> Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: "dev@impala" <de...@impala.incubator.apache.org>
>
>
> We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
> documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
> doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
> intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
> license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with all
> of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get with
> the generated file.
>
> rb
>
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
> [2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to add
> a
> > header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
> > licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
> >> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell,
> in
> >> a
> >> GPL way:
> >>
> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
> >> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
> >> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
> >>
> >> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
> >> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
> >>
> >> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to
> remove
> >> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your help,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
Fwd: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
It looks like this licensing question may affect us too. Alexey, did you
use the same generaotr/template to create our doxygen config files? Maybe
we should remove some of the comments to be sure we're on the right side of
the licensing before our 1.0 release?
-Todd
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid>
Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: "dev@impala" <de...@impala.incubator.apache.org>
We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with all
of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get with
the generated file.
rb
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
[2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to add a
> header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
> licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
>
> -Todd
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
>> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell, in
>> a
>> GPL way:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
>> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
>> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
>>
>> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
>> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
>>
>> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to remove
>> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
>>
>> Thanks for your help,
>> Jim
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>.
We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with all
of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get with
the generated file.
rb
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
[2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to add a
> header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
> licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
>
> -Todd
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
>> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell, in
>> a
>> GPL way:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
>> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
>> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
>>
>> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
>> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
>>
>> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to remove
>> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
>>
>> Thanks for your help,
>> Jim
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>.
We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license
documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to
doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't
intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the
license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with all
of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get with
the generated file.
rb
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224
[2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to add a
> header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
> licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
>
> -Todd
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
>> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell, in
>> a
>> GPL way:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g
>> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
>> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
>>
>> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05
>> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
>>
>> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to remove
>> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
>>
>> Thanks for your help,
>> Jim
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to add a
header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
-Todd
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell, in a
> GPL way:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.
> git;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
>
> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05ee09fc9ed6
> 474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
>
> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to remove
> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Jim
>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to add a
header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be
licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?)
-Todd
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <jb...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes substantial
> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can tell, in a
> GPL way:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.
> git;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790
> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e
>
> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05ee09fc9ed6
> 474cc8b1da/src/config.xml
>
> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to remove
> the prose, or perhaps some third thing?
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Jim
>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera