Looking at the history it seems that before the python text was added, pkg.go.dev can parse the license stack just fine. It doesn't recognize the PSF license, and fails closed entirely as a result.
I've filed an issue with pkg.go.dev ( https://github.com/golang/go/issues/45095). If the bug is fixed, the affected versions will become visible as well. In the meantime, we should revert my change which clobbered the other licenses and probably cherry pick it into the affected release branches. The PSF license is annoying as it's explicitly unique. Nothing but python can use it and call it the PSF license. However it is a redistribution friendly license, which is what matters. On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 3:00 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for this email. > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:32 PM Brian Hulette <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I just noticed that there was a recent change to our LICENSE file to make >> it exactly match the Apache 2.0 License [1]. This seems to be the result of >> two conflicting LICENSE issues. >> >> Go LICENSE issue: The motivation for [1] was to satisfy pkg.go.dev's >> license policies [2]. Prior to the change our documentation didn't show up >> there [3]. >> >> Java artifact LICENSE issue: The removed text contained information >> relevant to "convenience binary distributions". This text was added in [4] >> as a result of this dev@ thread [5], where we noticed that copyright >> notices were missing in binary artifacts. The suggested solution (that we >> went with) was to just add the information to the root (source) LICENSE. >> > > Python distribution is missing both files as well. ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1746) > > >> >> I'm not sure that that solution is consistent with this ASF guide [6] >> which states: >> >> > The LICENSE and NOTICE files must *exactly* represent the contents of >> the distribution they reside in. Only components and resources that are >> actually included in a distribution have any bearing on the content of that >> distribution's NOTICE and LICENSE. >> >> I would argue that *just* Apache 2.0 is the correct text for our root >> (source) LICENSE, and the correct way to deal with binary artifacts is to >> generate per-artifact LICENSE/NOTICE files. >> > > I do not know how to interpret this ASF guide. As an example from another > project: airflow also has a LICENSE file, NOTICE file, and a licenses > directory. There are even overlapping mentions. > > >> >> >> So right now the Go issue is fixed, but the Java artifact issue has >> regressed. I can think of two potential solutions to resolve both: >> 1) Restore the "convenience binary distributions" information, and see if >> we can get pkg.go.dev to allow it. >> 2) Add infrastructure to generate LICENSE and NOTICE files for Java >> binary artifacts. >> >> I have no idea how we might implement (2) so (1) seems more tenable, but >> less correct since it's adding information not relevant to the source >> release. >> >> Brian >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11657 >> [2] https://pkg.go.dev/license-policy >> [3] >> https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/apache/[email protected]+incompatible/sdks/go/pkg/beam >> [4] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5461 >> [5] >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6ef6630e908147ee83e1f1efd4befbda43efb2a59271c5cb49473103@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> [6] https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html >> >
