That's good news. :-) Thanks for looking into it Till and Stephan.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> I talked to Stephan and he pointed out that the flink-dist binary file,
> which is Flink's fat jar, is not part of the official Flink release. We do
> offer to download this f
I talked to Stephan and he pointed out that the flink-dist binary file,
which is Flink's fat jar, is not part of the official Flink release. We do
offer to download this file as part of a zip file from the Flink website.
However, this is only for convenience. In contrast to that, other binary
files
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> Hmm, this sounds like we should also have a proper LICENSE/NOTICE for our
> binary releases.
True... to quote the linked ASF page: "As far as LICENSE and NOTICE
are concerned, only bundled bits matter."
Hmm, this sounds like we should also have a proper LICENSE/NOTICE for our
binary releases.
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 at 18:06 Greg Hogan wrote:
> These external libraries will still be shipped in the binaries, which
> complicates the issue since source and binary licenses must be tracked
> separately.
These external libraries will still be shipped in the binaries, which
complicates the issue since source and binary licenses must be tracked
separately.
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
I do agree that this would be a nice improvement to the build system.
On Fri, Jul 1, 201
Ah, now I see that a compile-time dependency resolution would make
sense. Then we don't have to check license compatibility for web
dependencies which are downloaded during compile time and are not part
of the source distribution.
+1 Would be worth the effort to integrate this in our build system,
Yes, that is also how I understood the Apache License requirements. Having
a mere dependency on some external library which is not shipped as part of
the source release does not require to include it in the LICENSE/NOTICE
file. I think that you only have to include a reference in the
LICENSE/NOTICE
AFAIK the Apache License requires that we have an entry in the
LICENSE/NOTICE file for all external code that we ship with our source. If
we have vendor.js in our source we have to include everything that is in
there. If we don't have any actual external code in our source but only
specified depend
I'm afraid I don't think integration in the Maven build process makes
a difference in terms of licensing. It is already clearly specified
what dependencies the web frontend uses (see README, bower.json,
package.json). It won't get any easier with something integrated in
the build process. We still
I think it's not a question of easy-of-use but one of licensing. I don't
think anyone really knows what code ends up in vendor.js, so it is very
hard to figure out what we have to put into our LICENSE file.
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 at 12:14 Maximilian Michels wrote:
> Hi Till,
>
> Thanks for checking
Hi Till,
Thanks for checking the licenses for our web frontend.
I think the reason why we added a big binary Javascript blob into our
repository was that it was easiest for most developers to deal with.
We don't have much Javascript expertise in the Flink community.
Incorporating the web frontend
Hi Flink community,
while reviewing the LICENSE and NOTICE file of Apache Flink, I noticed that
according to the LICENSE file Flink contains many java script files.
However, tracking the corresponding files back was not so easy, because
they are actually all merged into
flink-runtime-web/web-dashb
12 matches
Mail list logo
