The question is just whether the metadata and instructions involving these Maven packages counts as sufficient to tell the user that they have different licensing terms. For example, our Ganglia package was called spark-ganglia-lgpl (so you'd notice it's a different license even from its name), and our Kinesis one was called spark-streaming-kinesis-asl, and our docs both mentioned these were under different licensing terms. But is that enough? That's the question.
Matei > On Sep 7, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: > > To be clear, "safe" has very little to do with this. > > It's pretty clear that there's very little risk of the spark module > for kinesis being considered a derivative work, much less all of > spark. > > The use limitation in 3.3 that caused the amazon license to be put on > the apache X list also doesn't have anything to do with a legal safety > risk here. Really, what are you going to use a kinesis connector for, > except for connecting to kinesis? > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> It is good to get clarification, but the way I read it, the issue is >>> whether we publish it as official Apache artifacts (in maven, etc). >>> >>> Users can of course build it directly (and we can make it easy to do so) - >>> as they are explicitly agreeing to additional licenses. >>> >>> Regards >>> Mridul >>> >> >> +1, by providing instructions on how the user would build, and attaching the >> license details on the instructions, we are then safe on the legal aspects >> of it. >> >> >> >> -- >> Luciano Resende >> http://twitter.com/lresende1975 >> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
