Hi, > The situation isn't that bad. It is due to the fact this is a "sdist" (not a > bdist).
A single -1 vote isn’t bad and other IPMC member may vote +1 - but probably unlikely in this case I think. Whatever the artefact is called the LICENSE and NOTICE needs to reflect what is contained with in it. [1] Also [2] "Any redistribution must obey the licensing requirements of the contents.” If there is any GPL code in there (and I’m not 100% there is but licensing around that file needs looking at IMO) then that would be an issue [3] > Our git repo does contain the licenses and does pass RAT. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something but I don’t see any of those missing licenses mentioned in the LICENSE here [4] in fact it looks identical to the one in the distribution I just reviewed. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary 3. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited 4. https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/blob/master/LICENSE --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
