You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2016/06/01 03:15:25 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
Hi,
+1 (binding) to release source package, but -1 for the client connivence binary until the 4 clause BSD licensing issue is resolved.
For the source released I checked:
- all files have incubating
- signatures check out
- disclaimer exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good
- No unexpected binary in source
- All ASF licensed file have ASF headers
The source LICENSE has a minor issue. It mentions the 4 clause BSD license which is not compatible with the Apache license (only the 2 and 3 clause BSD licenses are) [1][2]. In this case the extra clause has been recinded [3] you might want to reword/state that in the license.
But that does mean there is an issue with the client binary release as that includes OpenSSL which lists a 6 clause BSD style license (similar to a 4 clause BSD license) and SSLeay under a 4 clause BSD license. You may need to clarify this on legal discuss. It may be that their intent to move to an Apache licence may mean you can hold off on doing anything but I’m not 100% sure. [4][5]
I would also remove the GPL license text from the server’s LICENSE file to make it clear which license it’s included under. If something is dual licensed you select which licence you want to use.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-185
3. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
4. https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/
5. https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/License
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Looking at the openssl issue, I want to figure out why we are statically
> linking the libraries. If there is a key reason it needs to be static
> rather than dynamically linked, then I'll want to go to legal-discuss and
> ask whether we can distribute it, given license changes in the works.
Given the 4 clause BSD license is most likely category X I think the only way you can have it as a dependancy is if it is an optional one. [1] Dynamically linking it would be one way of doing that. (But INAL so again it may be good to check on legal discuss.)
> the expedient thing is to go ahead with this release, minus the client binary.
That works for me and you have my +1 for that.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
Posted by Steve Varnau <st...@esgyn.com>.
Stian,
Thanks for the note. Since it says 5002 "applies to software containing or
designed for use with encryption software", means that we would add our dist
directory even if we do not bundle OpenSSL, but merely have code that links
with it?
--Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stian Soiland-Reyes [mailto:stain@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 7:20 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
>
> Note distributing OpenSSL mean you need to update the Trafodion entry on
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/
>
> to also include your dist folder.
>
> On 1 Jun 2016 6:54 p.m., "Steve Varnau" <st...@esgyn.com> wrote:
>
> > Justin,
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying the issues here. I will write JIRAs to fix the
> > two
> > minor issues in next release (clarify the rescinded BSD-4 clause and
> > remove
> > the GPL part of the dual license).
> >
> > Looking at the openssl issue, I want to figure out why we are statically
> > linking the libraries. If there is a key reason it needs to be static
> > rather than dynamically linked, then I'll want to go to legal-discuss
> > and
> > ask whether we can distribute it, given license changes in the works.
> >
> > If we can change the build to change to dynamic linking and not include
> > openssl in the binaries, then perhaps the expedient thing is to go ahead
> > with this release, minus the client binary. And re-package it for next
> > release.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --Steve
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:15 PM
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > +1 (binding) to release source package, but -1 for the client
> > > connivence
> > > binary
> > > until the 4 clause BSD licensing issue is resolved.
> > >
> > > For the source released I checked:
> > > - all files have incubating
> > > - signatures check out
> > > - disclaimer exists
> > > - LICENSE and NOTICE good
> > > - No unexpected binary in source
> > > - All ASF licensed file have ASF headers
> > >
> > > The source LICENSE has a minor issue. It mentions the 4 clause BSD
> > license
> > > which is not compatible with the Apache license (only the 2 and 3
> > > clause
> > > BSD
> > > licenses are) [1][2]. In this case the extra clause has been recinded
> > > [3]
> > > you
> > > might want to reword/state that in the license.
> > >
> > > But that does mean there is an issue with the client binary release as
> > > that
> > > includes OpenSSL which lists a 6 clause BSD style license (similar to
> > > a 4
> > > clause
> > > BSD license) and SSLeay under a 4 clause BSD license. You may need to
> > > clarify
> > > this on legal discuss. It may be that their intent to move to an
> > > Apache
> > > licence
> > > may mean you can hold off on doing anything but I’m not 100% sure.
> > > [4][5]
> > >
> > > I would also remove the GPL license text from the server’s LICENSE
> > > file
> > to
> > > make
> > > it clear which license it’s included under. If something is dual
> > > licensed
> > > you
> > > select which licence you want to use.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> > > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-185
> > > 3. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> > > 4. https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/
> > > 5. https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/License
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
Note distributing OpenSSL mean you need to update the Trafodion entry on
http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/
to also include your dist folder.
On 1 Jun 2016 6:54 p.m., "Steve Varnau" <st...@esgyn.com> wrote:
> Justin,
>
> Thanks for clarifying the issues here. I will write JIRAs to fix the two
> minor issues in next release (clarify the rescinded BSD-4 clause and remove
> the GPL part of the dual license).
>
> Looking at the openssl issue, I want to figure out why we are statically
> linking the libraries. If there is a key reason it needs to be static
> rather than dynamically linked, then I'll want to go to legal-discuss and
> ask whether we can distribute it, given license changes in the works.
>
> If we can change the build to change to dynamic linking and not include
> openssl in the binaries, then perhaps the expedient thing is to go ahead
> with this release, minus the client binary. And re-package it for next
> release.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Steve
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:15 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > +1 (binding) to release source package, but -1 for the client connivence
> > binary
> > until the 4 clause BSD licensing issue is resolved.
> >
> > For the source released I checked:
> > - all files have incubating
> > - signatures check out
> > - disclaimer exists
> > - LICENSE and NOTICE good
> > - No unexpected binary in source
> > - All ASF licensed file have ASF headers
> >
> > The source LICENSE has a minor issue. It mentions the 4 clause BSD
> license
> > which is not compatible with the Apache license (only the 2 and 3 clause
> > BSD
> > licenses are) [1][2]. In this case the extra clause has been recinded [3]
> > you
> > might want to reword/state that in the license.
> >
> > But that does mean there is an issue with the client binary release as
> > that
> > includes OpenSSL which lists a 6 clause BSD style license (similar to a 4
> > clause
> > BSD license) and SSLeay under a 4 clause BSD license. You may need to
> > clarify
> > this on legal discuss. It may be that their intent to move to an Apache
> > licence
> > may mean you can hold off on doing anything but I’m not 100% sure. [4][5]
> >
> > I would also remove the GPL license text from the server’s LICENSE file
> to
> > make
> > it clear which license it’s included under. If something is dual licensed
> > you
> > select which licence you want to use.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-185
> > 3. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> > 4. https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/
> > 5. https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/License
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
Posted by Steve Varnau <st...@esgyn.com>.
Justin,
Thanks for clarifying the issues here. I will write JIRAs to fix the two
minor issues in next release (clarify the rescinded BSD-4 clause and remove
the GPL part of the dual license).
Looking at the openssl issue, I want to figure out why we are statically
linking the libraries. If there is a key reason it needs to be static
rather than dynamically linked, then I'll want to go to legal-discuss and
ask whether we can distribute it, given license changes in the works.
If we can change the build to change to dynamic linking and not include
openssl in the binaries, then perhaps the expedient thing is to go ahead
with this release, minus the client binary. And re-package it for next
release.
Thanks!
--Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:15 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion 2.0.0 (incubating)
>
> Hi,
>
> +1 (binding) to release source package, but -1 for the client connivence
> binary
> until the 4 clause BSD licensing issue is resolved.
>
> For the source released I checked:
> - all files have incubating
> - signatures check out
> - disclaimer exists
> - LICENSE and NOTICE good
> - No unexpected binary in source
> - All ASF licensed file have ASF headers
>
> The source LICENSE has a minor issue. It mentions the 4 clause BSD license
> which is not compatible with the Apache license (only the 2 and 3 clause
> BSD
> licenses are) [1][2]. In this case the extra clause has been recinded [3]
> you
> might want to reword/state that in the license.
>
> But that does mean there is an issue with the client binary release as
> that
> includes OpenSSL which lists a 6 clause BSD style license (similar to a 4
> clause
> BSD license) and SSLeay under a 4 clause BSD license. You may need to
> clarify
> this on legal discuss. It may be that their intent to move to an Apache
> licence
> may mean you can hold off on doing anything but I’m not 100% sure. [4][5]
>
> I would also remove the GPL license text from the server’s LICENSE file to
> make
> it clear which license it’s included under. If something is dual licensed
> you
> select which licence you want to use.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-185
> 3. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> 4. https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2015/08/01/cla/
> 5. https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/License
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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