On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> Excellent. More eyes on these issues is great. Thanks for spending your time
> on this.
+1
Sean and I have continued our conversation offline and were able to clarify
some aspects of our (very imperfect) documentation. I beli
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:14 PM, sebb wrote:
> >>>4. presence or absence of NOTICEs in source distribution doesn't
> >>>affect binary distribution.
> >>
> >> Not true.
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> If you are saying that the NOTICE in an ASF binary release has no
> direct bearing on the NOTICE i
On 12 October 2014 17:40, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 5:16 AM, sebb wrote:
>> I don't think that's correct.
>
> Well, since neither of us is a lawyer (at least I am not) at this
> point we're debating interpretations on ALv2.
>
>> A source distribution with NOTICE may be inc
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 5:16 AM, sebb wrote:
> I don't think that's correct.
Well, since neither of us is a lawyer (at least I am not) at this
point we're debating interpretations on ALv2.
> A source distribution with NOTICE may be included in an ASF binary
> distribution - e.g. example code is
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:16 AM, sebb wrote:
> >3. presence or absence of NOTICEs in binary distribution doesn't
> >affect source distribution.
>
> Not true.
>
> >4. presence or absence of NOTICEs in source distribution doesn't
> >affect binary distribution.
>
> Not true.
On 11 October 2014 19:30, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>> Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus,
>>
>> They most certainly do. Please download the distribution
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> The meta-issue is that some here seem to be arguing that IP licensing
> can be taken lightly because it's hard or annoying.
That's not it. I am arguing that licensing should be as minimal as possible
because that's in the interest of *users*.
pache.org>
Subject: Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> Should I just propose a PR since I'm making trouble about it?
>
Great idea.
Keep in mind that the binary NOTICE file in Drill is generated
automatically by the build code in the sou
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> Should I just propose a PR since I'm making trouble about it?
>
Great idea.
Keep in mind that the binary NOTICE file in Drill is generated
automatically by the build code in the source distribution so any PR should
be against that mechanism ra
Sounds OK to me too if that is the prevailing sentiment; I personally
do not operate (non-ASF) OSS projects that way. It seems just within
the letter of the law.
What about this little transitive dep of Netty I mentioned? This is
not a NOTICE issue, and I *think* this one is beyond interpreting
aw
party project.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Roman Shaposhnik<mailto:r...@apache.org>
Sent: 10/11/2014 12:09 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Bloated NOTICE files are evil
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>> You are confusing different distributions. Netty provides a source
>> distribution which does include a NOTICE file. Netty also provides binary
>> (jar) distributions. These do not include a NOTICE file.
>
> I think this is a fair question.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning
>> wrote:
>> > Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus,
>>
>> They most certainly do. Please download the distr
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus,
>
> They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20:
>
> https://github.com/netty/netty/relea
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning
> wrote:
> > Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus,
>
> They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20:
>
> https://github.com/netty/netty/r
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Netty's artifacts ("its distribution") do not include a notice. Thus,
They most certainly do. Please download the distribution of Netty 4.0.20:
https://github.com/netty/netty/releases/tag/netty-4.0.20.Final
and find the NOTICE.txt file.
I
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> Unfortunately, Netty does not include NOTICE.txt in any of its jars
> for you. This text does not appear therefore in the Drill binary
> distro. At least, I grepped up and down the whole distro and didn't
> see it, and it's not in the Netty jars
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>
>> Here's another example. Drill distributes Netty 4.0.20, which is AL2
>> licensed and contains a substantial NOTICE file with stuff like ...
>>
>>
>> ---
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> Here's another example. Drill distributes Netty 4.0.20, which is AL2
> licensed and contains a substantial NOTICE file with stuff like ...
>
>
> ---
> This product conta
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> It is a tortured and patently incorrect reading to assume that the license
> requires TWO copies of such notices.
Sure, but, nobody said that. The question is whether at least one copy
is present, and ideally in the right place.
Here's anothe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> Yes it means greater downstream burden, yes it may have originated
> from a 'hack', but that doesn't seem to make the license not say what
> it says. Obviously I'd rather not have to do this either.
>
It is a tortured and patently incorrect rea
In any case, the NOTICE files included in every jar are preserved. The
Drill binary release complies *exactly* with the language "include a
readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file".
There is no violation of OSS licenses going on here.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> I admire the good-faith efforts that the Spark (and Solr) folks have put
> in attempting to comply with their interpretation of ASF requirements, but I
> don't think we should encourage podlings to emulate the current state of their
> licen
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html . Yes
> LICENSE also needs to contain more things as well. Yes, there are
> several situations where NOTICE does not need to change, but this is
> the key sentence:
>
> "Aside from Apach
24 matches
Mail list logo
