On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote: > Hi, > > -1 binding until license and crypto issues are cleared up.
Justin, thanks for your quick review -- you're awesome, man! Still I have a few questions/comments ;-) > I notice the NOTICE mentions "Classpath Exception to the GPL” this is > Category X > and can’t be included in an release. See > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x I think this section of NOTICE is simply not worded well enough. It is a good ol' Jersey after all: https://jersey.java.net/license.html Better yet, I think we actually got rid of it so we can strike that part of NOTICE. > This release also looks to contain crypto software - has this been followed? > [4] Not it doesn't. It dynamically links against Crypto software, but as you can see this is a source release only. A similar issue of the dynamic linking against crypto/GPL libraries came up during incubation and was addressed: http://markmail.org/message/wiqekxsbmerufmln > I checked: > - file contain incubating > - signatures and hashes good > - DISCLAIMER exists > - LICENSE and NOTICE have (lots) issues > - source files have headers > - no unexpected binary files Great! > - unable to compile from source (but probably my set up - complains about > json-c) The easiest way to build is via a docker container: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Build+and+Install > License and notice issues: > - LICENSE is missing many BSD, MIT and similar pieces of licensed software. Well, this is where I get to be an old fart and insist that a position of LICENSE only containing ALv2 is actually legally defensible and something that I've been advocating. That said, a few recent threads (and especially a Marvin's thoughtful response) convinced me that instead of endlessly arguing about it I may as well go with the flow -- so yeah, lets just move some parts of NOTICE to LICENSE. > - NOTICE should not include MIT, BSD or normally Apache licenses. [1][2] MIT/BSD -- see above. I actually really don't like them in LICENSE, but like I said -- lets not argue about that. Apache License -- no sure what you mean here -- I think we're simply bubbling up the dependencies NOTICEs. Why is that wrong? > - NOTICE also should not include anything that is not bundled in the actual > source release.[3] (e.g. junit) See bellow. I think we're bundling bits and pieces of it. But I'll re-review since there could be entries that snuck into this NOTICE from the binary NOTICE. > - Some files listed in NOTICE don’t exist e.g. > src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomicops_internals_aix.h. This makes it hard to > review. I think those are locations in the original. IIRC, the code ended up in a few different places in HAWQ when it was leveraged. It wasn't quite cut-n-paste, but it wasn't code encapsulation either. Not sure what do you want us to do to handle that case. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
