Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

[Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>]

Hi Justin,

I'm working on making the changes you suggested below. A few follow-up
questions:

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Hmm, I'm not seeing this -- got a line number? Line 614 in LICENSE.txt
> > says "StumbleUpon”.
>
> Sorry it was WebRTC line 360 and also LevelDB line 315.
>
>
WebRTC and LevelDB are both projects that were released by Google. So, the
BSD license's 3rd clause refers to Google rather than the project names.
So, will leave this.

> Can you clarify what this means?
>
> See [1] basically a pointer to the full test of the license in the source
> release.
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>

In the example provided in the link above, the "pointer" takes the form of
a file path 'deps/superwidget/'. But in our case, we are not fully
including the source distro where the code came from. Rather, we derived
some of our code from some of their code, piece-by-piece. So, we can't
point to their LICENSE file as a path within our source distro, as it's not
fully bundled. I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned upon,
because licenses may change over time, or the links may break, and thus
it's better to make sure the license text is captured at the time the
dependency is included.

Does that sound reasonable?

> Given it's not software so much as a template for a publication, there
> > isn't a particular open source license associated with it. But, we
> > received permission to redistribute, which we cited in the commit
> > message above and added the header requested by the ACM.
>
> I don’t know the full details and INAL but as far as I can tell under the
> terms of that license you have to pay to redistribute it.
>
> Even if you got permission to distribute from ACM are 3rd parties allowed
> to take this file and redistribute that?
>
> Either way it should be noted in LICENSE I think.
>

We are working around this by removing the file in question.

-Todd

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> I haven't been following carefully, but isn't there a BSD header in these
> files?  If so, couldn't your LICENSE refer people to the headers in those
> files?

You can and it's nice and useful to do so but it not legally required. All BSD ask for is a full text of the license and the header contains that.

That’s why I said I prefer the short form which usually includes the copyright holder name. Means all he info is in one place which is nice.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 3/1/16, 5:22 PM, "Todd Lipcon" <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
>> > to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned
>>upon,
>> > because licenses may change over time, or the links may break
>>
>> Correct. Also most licenses say you much include the full text of the
>> license in your distribution.
>>
>>
>OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
>
>"""
>src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
>src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
>src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
>src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
>WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
>3-clause BSD license.
>
>  For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
>headers at the top of the respective files.
>"""
>
>...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
>license, instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt. Does that
>sound
>like the best path forward?

I haven't been following carefully, but isn't there a BSD header in these
files?  If so, couldn't your LICENSE refer people to the headers in those
files?

-Alex

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
>> >
>> > """
>> > src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
>> > src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
>> > src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
>> > src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
>> > WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
>> > 3-clause BSD license.
>> >
>> >  For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
>> > headers at the top of the respective files.
>> > """
>> >
>> > ...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
>> > license
>>
>> That covers all license requirements AFAICS.
>>
>> > , instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt.
>>
>> I’d prefer the short form in the license point to the full text but that's
>> just my personal preference.
>>
>> The Kudu PPMC are free to deal with it in this way of they want.
>>
>>
> Thanks again for the input. I started to do as you suggested and just refer
> to the headers, but then I realized a slight complication -- this makes
> life harder for binary distributors. Currently, a binary distribution can
> simply include the 'LICENSE.txt' file (eg in
> /usr/share/doc/kudu/LICENSE.txt or somesuch) and be sure that they comply
> with the 2nd clause of the BSD license. If instead we refer to the source,
> a binary distributor would have to do the work of copy-pasting these
> notices back up into the LICENSE.txt file or other documentation in order
> to comply.
>
> Given that you said the PPMC is free to choose either way, I'll propose to
> the other PPMC members that we stay with the status quo and continue
> copying these licenses into the top-level file, so that binary distributors
> dont have to go on a scavenger hunt.

+1, I agree with your reasoning.

I've been thinking that our recommendations in the Licensing How-To
ought to change in line with such principles: more straight-up copying
and less editing at the possible cost of verbosity and redundancy,
while still satisfying the constraint of only providing information
about bundled bits.

Marvin Humphrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

[Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
> >
> > """
> > src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
> > src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
> > src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
> > src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
> > WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
> > 3-clause BSD license.
> >
> >  For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
> > headers at the top of the respective files.
> > """
> >
> > ...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
> > license
>
> That covers all license requirements AFAICS.
>
> > , instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt.
>
> I’d prefer the short form in the license point to the full text but that's
> just my personal preference.
>
> The Kudu PPMC are free to deal with it in this way of they want.
>
>
Thanks again for the input. I started to do as you suggested and just refer
to the headers, but then I realized a slight complication -- this makes
life harder for binary distributors. Currently, a binary distribution can
simply include the 'LICENSE.txt' file (eg in
/usr/share/doc/kudu/LICENSE.txt or somesuch) and be sure that they comply
with the 2nd clause of the BSD license. If instead we refer to the source,
a binary distributor would have to do the work of copy-pasting these
notices back up into the LICENSE.txt file or other documentation in order
to comply.

Given that you said the PPMC is free to choose either way, I'll propose to
the other PPMC members that we stay with the status quo and continue
copying these licenses into the top-level file, so that binary distributors
dont have to go on a scavenger hunt.

-Todd

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:
> 
> """
> src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
> src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
> src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
> src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
> WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
> 3-clause BSD license.
> 
>  For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
> headers at the top of the respective files.
> """
> 
> ...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
> license

That covers all license requirements AFAICS.

> , instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt.

I’d prefer the short form in the license point to the full text but that's just my personal preference.

The Kudu PPMC are free to deal with it in this way of they want.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

[Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
> > to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned upon,
> > because licenses may change over time, or the links may break
>
> Correct. Also most licenses say you much include the full text of the
> license in your distribution.
>
>
OK. In the case that we've incorporated code, we could switch to doing:

"""
src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h: Hybrid BSD (half BSD, half zlib)
src/kudu/util (some portions): 3-clause BSD license
src/kudu/util (HdrHistogram-related classes): public domain
src/kudu/util/{random-util.cc},{random.h}: some portions adapted from
WebRTC project (modules/video_coding/main/test/test_util.cc) under a
3-clause BSD license.

  For full license text of the above licenses, please refer to the license
headers at the top of the respective files.
"""

...and then make sure that those files contain the full text of the
license, instead of copy-pasting the text into LICENSE.txt. Does that sound
like the best path forward?

-Todd
-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

[Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>]

Hi,

> I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers
> to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned upon,
> because licenses may change over time, or the links may break

Correct. Also most licenses say you much include the full text of the license in your distribution.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org