Thanks for forking the new email thread, Reynold. It is entirely possible
that I am being overly skittish. I have posed a question for our legal
experts: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-226
To answer Sean's question on the previous email thread, I would propose
making changes like the following to the NOTICE file:
Replace a stanza like this...
"This product contains a modified version of 'JZlib', a re-implementation
of
zlib in pure Java, which can be obtained at:
* LICENSE:
* license/LICENSE.jzlib.txt (BSD Style License)
* HOMEPAGE:
* http://www.jcraft.com/jzlib/";
...with full license text like this
"This product contains a modified version of 'JZlib', a re-implementation
of
zlib in pure Java, which can be obtained at:
* HOMEPAGE:
* http://www.jcraft.com/jzlib/
The ZLIB license text follows:
JZlib 0.0.* were released under the GNU LGPL license. Later, we have
switched
over to a BSD-style license.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2000-2011 ymnk, JCraft,Inc. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
3. The names of the authors may not be used to endorse or promote
products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL JCRAFT,
INC. OR ANY CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,
INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA,
OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE,
EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE."
Thanks,
-Rick
Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote on 09/24/2015 10:55:53 AM:
> From: Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com>
> To: Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com>
> Cc: Richard Hillegas/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS, "dev@spark.apache.org"
> <dev@spark.apache.org>
> Date: 09/24/2015 10:56 AM
> Subject: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
>
> Richard,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up and this is a great point. Let's start
> another thread for it so we don't hijack the release thread.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Richard Hillegas <rhil...@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> > Under your guidance, I would be happy to help compile a NOTICE file
which
> > follows the pattern used by Derby and the JDK. This effort might
proceed in
> > parallel with vetting 1.5.1 and could be targeted at a later release
> > vehicle. I don't think that the ASF's exposure is greatly increased by
one
> > more release which follows the old pattern.
>
> I'd prefer to use the ASF's preferred pattern, no? That's what we've
> been trying to do and seems like we're even required to do so, not
> follow a different convention. There is some specific guidance there
> about what to add, and not add, to these files. Specifically, because
> the AL2 requires downstream projects to embed the contents of NOTICE,
> the guidance is to only include elements in NOTICE that must appear
> there.
>
> Put it this way -- what would you like to change specifically? (you
> can start another thread for that)
>
> >> My assessment (just looked before I saw Sean's email) is the same as
> >> his. The NOTICE file embeds other projects' licenses.
> >
> > This may be where our perspectives diverge. I did not find those
licenses
> > embedded in the NOTICE file. As I see it, the licenses are cited but
not
> > included.
>
> Pretty sure that was meant to say that NOTICE embeds other projects'
> "notices", not licenses. And those notices can have all kinds of
> stuff, including licenses.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
