Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

Thanks Ryan. As I said, we have a different "view"/"read" on that (we already have long discussions about that especially in the Incubator :)). As I said to Fokko, that's OK (even if I strongly convinced that NOTICE should mention the dependencies we ship like gradlew, as an user and legal standp

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

JB, Iceberg documents the licenses and copyright of bundled projects in the LICENSE file. You can see that gradlew is documented here: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/main/LICENSE#L204-L213 This is based on the how-to guide that Fokko linked: Bundling permissively-licensed dependencies .

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

OK, no problem, let's keep as it is if you prefer (as I said it's not a blocker). I still consider that it's not complete (I don't see the value of NOTICE if it's just to say that we use ASF projects, it's not a point for Iceberg but generally speaking, I already had disagreement with ASF members

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

Just using this thread to come back to the NOTICE discussion. This came also up with the latest Python release, and I spent quite a bit of time on it. If it's "used" section is not strictly required in NOTICE from a legal > perspective, the embedded dependencies should be mentioned (either > under

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

Thanks Eduard, I will share a new RC info with the fix. - Ajantha On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:17 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > If it's "used" section is not strictly required in NOTICE from a legal > perspective, the embedded dependencies should be mentioned (either > under the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

Hi Ryan, If it's "used" section is not strictly required in NOTICE from a legal perspective, the embedded dependencies should be mentioned (either under the Apache license as soon as they are not a ASF project), that's the "are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE or the presence of licensi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

JB, Can you help me understand your rationale for updating NOTICE? We are strict about what goes into the NOTICE file to comply with ASF guidance : The NOTICE file is reserved for a certain subset of legally required notifications which ar

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

Hi Eduard Thanks for the update. I agree that it's a blocker, so +1 to go with a RC1. Regards JB On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 5:25 PM Eduard Tudenhoefner wrote: > > I noticed an issue while upgrading to the latest Iceberg version internally > and in Trino. As part of #9012 I've added a check when a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

I noticed an issue while upgrading to the latest Iceberg version internally and in Trino. As part of #9012 I've added a check when a new table is being created that makes sure a view with the same name doesn't exist. The unintentional side-effect of thi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 RC0

+1 (non binding) I checked: - checksum and signature are correct - ASF headers are OK - no binary found in the source distribution - build is OK from the source distribution To be improved for next releases (not blocker at all): - NOTICE file should mention dependencies and tools used (not necess