> On 24 Sep 2015, at 21:11, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Yes, but the ASF's reading seems to be clear: > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps > "In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the > source tree and a short note summarizing its licensing:" > > I'd be concerned if you get a different interpretation from the ASF. I > suppose it's OK to ask the question again, but for the moment I don't > see a reason to believe there's a problem.
Having looked at the notice, I actually see a lot more thorough that most ASF projects. in contrast, here is the hadoop one: --- This product includes software developed by The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). --- regarding the spark one, I don't see that you need to refer to transitive dependencies for the non-binary distros, and, for any binaries, to bother listing the licensing of all the ASF dependencies. Things pulled in from elsewhere & pasted in, that's slightly more complex. I've just been dealing with the issue of taking an openstack-applied patch to the hadoop swift object store code -and, because the licenses are compatible, we're just going to stick it in as-is. Uber-JARs, such as spark.jar, do contain lots of classes from everywhere. I don't know the status of them. You could probably get maven to work out the licensing if all the dependencies declare their license. On that topic, note that marcelo's proposal to break up that jar and add lib/*.jar to the CP would allow codahale's ganglia support to come in just by dropping in the relevant LGPL JAR, avoiding the need to build a custom spark JAR tainted by the transitive dependency. -Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
