Hi devs,
I am cancelling this vote, and will prepare a new RC with the notice fixes
included.
Thanks,
Gyula
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 7:42 AM Gyula Fóra wrote:
> Thank you all for the input, let’s consider this a blocker.
>
> As soon as we have the NOTICE fix , I will prepare the new RC.
>
> Gyu
Thank you all for the input, let’s consider this a blocker.
As soon as we have the NOTICE fix , I will prepare the new RC.
Gyula
On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 06:51, Yang Wang wrote:
> Given that *flink-kubernetes-shaded* already contains a NOTICE file, and
> *flink-kubernetes-webhook* does not bundl
Given that *flink-kubernetes-shaded* already contains a NOTICE file, and
*flink-kubernetes-webhook* does not bundle any dependencies.
IIUC, what we should do now is to add a correct NOTICE file only for the
*flink-kubernetes-operator* module.
If I do not miss anything, this would not be very diffi
I believe if we as the PMC distribute a docker image (which is optional,
"convenience"), then that image has to follow the rules for binary packages
[1]. (And I would assume that applies regardless where we host the images.)
Now to say that we only publish sources kind of side steps that problem.
I see your point and the value for having such a notice added.
I think there are 2 completely distinct questions at play here:
a) Is there a legal requirement for a NOTICE file for the docker image?
b) If not, should we block the release on this and add it immediately?
For a)
I think from a lega
One difference to Flink is that the distribution bundled in the docker
image still contains the NOTICE covering the contents of it.
It may admittedly not be the most discoverable place, but a reasonable
one I think.
Docker as a whole is very weird when it comes to licensing.
Think of all the
Thanks for the input!
I am not an expert on this topic and have been contemplating this myself
also.
We are basically trying to follow the precedent set by Flink and Statefun
projects where the docker builds that we use to publish images to
dockerhub do not declare any notices.
We will not use gh
I don't think having users build the fat-jar & docker image absolves us
of all responsibility w.r.t. the licensing of used products.
At the very least we need to inform users what licenses the fat-jar &
docker image fall under such that they can make an informed decision as
to whether they can
Hi Chesnay,
Let me try to explain the "strange stuff"
flink-kubernetes-shaded relocates some classes found in flink-kubernetes in
order to not conflict with some of the operator dependencies.
This is necessary as flink-kubernetes packages almost everything in the
fat-jar as-is without relocation.
There's some strange stuff in here.
What exactly is the purpose of flink-kubernetes-shaded? You're just
re-packaging flink-kubernetes without making any changes.
The uploaded flink-kubernetes-operator jar isn't bundling any
dependencies. Why is the fat jar not uploaded? Is it used anywhere el
10 matches
Mail list logo
