Thanks Ted for writing Marvin. I think this clarifies things for the
LICENSE and NOTICE files.
Since we have to parse anyways the NOTICE files of all direct and
transitive ALv2 dependencies for the binary distribution, it probably does
not make a big difference in terms of maintenance whether we l
Thanks Till, that clears up the confusion I had =)
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Till Rohrmann 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.
ally. But the bottom line
> is
> > still the bottom line: LICENSE and NOTICE must reflect the bundled bits.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Marvin
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Ted Dunning
> > wrote:
> > > Marvin,
> >
gt; >
> > Can you comment on this question that the flink guys have?
> >
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Till Rohrmann
> > Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:33 AM
> > Subject: Listing Apache-2.0 dependencies in LICENSE fil
To summarize:
1. Your PR changes are necessary. Thanks for doing it.
2. The consensus (PR comments + ML) is to skip other Apache licensed
dependencies.
3. Shaded Jars need LICENSE and NOTICE in META-INF.
Let's wrap this up today and get it out of the way of the release. :-)
– Ufuk
On 15 Jun
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 r
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
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
wrote:
> If i
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 wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just updated our LICENSE of the binary distribution and noticed that we
> also list dependencies which are
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 wheth
10 matches
Mail list logo
