Thanks Till, that clears up the confusion I had =)
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Henry, > > there are actually two licensing questions and one update for the current > release going on but all of them are orthogonal and therefore I would like > to keep them separate. > > The PR [1] which you referred to are the necessary updates for the source > and binary distribution of the upcoming release. There it's important that > maybe another pair of eyes takes a look at it. > > Then we have the question whether we have to include a LICENSE and NOTICE > file in our jars because they contain shaded dependencies. > > And last but not least, the question of this thread is whether we want to > keep the list of Apache-2.0 dependencies in our LICENSE files or not. Thus, > let's first discuss and then maybe decide later on this issue here in this > thread. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:03 PM Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Till, >> >> There are several discussions about LICENSE for dependencies happening >> at the same time so I would like to make sure we merge them into a >> decision in dev@ list. >> >> Is this related to PR https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/830 for >> updating LICENSE and NOTCE of Flink dependencies? >> >> - Henry >> >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > Hi Till, >> > >> > That's correct, It is not necessary to include Apache 2.0-licensed >> projects >> > in the LICENSE file, unless they contain non-Apache 2.0-licensed code. We >> > should definitely remove those entries from the LICENSE file. >> > >> > Best, >> > Max >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> If it is not against the Apache Guidelines I would vote for removing >> them. >> >> I'm always in favour of keeping things simple. >> >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 at 18:34 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi guys, >> >> > >> >> > I just updated our LICENSE of the binary distribution and noticed >> that we >> >> > also list dependencies which are licensed under Apache-2.0. As far as >> I >> >> > understand the ASF guidelines [1], this is not strictly necessary. >> Since >> >> it >> >> > is a lot of work to keep the list up to date, I was wondering whether >> we >> >> > want to remove Apache-2.0 dependencies from this list or not. I would >> be >> >> in >> >> > favour of this if it does not contradict an ASF policy which I miss. >> >> > >> >> > This might even have another advantage. Currently, we're shading in >> many >> >> > modules the Guava and ASM dependency away. Thus their binary data is >> >> > contained in nearly every jar we publish on maven. If we wanted to be >> >> > consistent with our license policy then we would have to add in each >> of >> >> > these jars a LICENSE/NOTICE file which lists these two dependencies, >> IMO. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Till >> >> > >> >> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice >> >> > >> >> >>
