[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STREAMS-664?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17149618#comment-17149618
]
Steve Blackmon commented on STREAMS-664:
----------------------------------------
I took a look at LICENSE files of several apache TLPs peripheral to Streams.
Accumulo, Any23, Flink, Jena, Juneau, Spark, and Zeppelin.
Some of these include additional statements below the text of the main Apache
License, while others do not.
>From research on lists.apache.org, it seems the main reason LICENSE would need
>additional details is if source code from other projects / license types has
>been copy/pasted into source repo, or is otherwise packaged in the binary
>release, except for as a maven dependency.
Even if we begin shipping a binary artifact based on the Uber-jar produced by
building streams-dist I can't think of any additional disclosures that would
need to go under LICENSE as all source code is original property of Apache
Streams and our binary won't include anything aside from compiled streams jars
and transitive dependencies whose license details will be covered in detail
under NOTICE.
Can anyone think of a reason we'd need to augment our LICENSE? Am I confused
in my understanding of this at all?
> Fix LICENSE
> -----------
>
> Key: STREAMS-664
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STREAMS-664
> Project: Streams
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Steve Blackmon
> Priority: Major
>
> Per email from Justin to dev list 4/11/2020
> {color:#d5dade}- There seems to be a few things missing from LICENSE{color}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
