On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > 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.
The requirements for including source can be different. There's not much of it. There's not really a "transitive dependency" for source, as it is self-contained if copied into the project. I think the source stuff is dealt with correctly in LICENSE. Yes you also don't end up needing to repeat the licensing for ASF dependencies. The issue is BSD/MIT here as far as I can tell (so-called permissive licenses). > 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. Indeed, that's exactly why we have to deal with license stuff since Spark does redistribute other code (not just depend on it). And yes, using Maven to dig out this info is just what I have done :) It's not that we missed dependencies, and it's not an issue of NOTICE, but rather BSD/MIT licenses in LICENSE. The net-net is: inline them. > 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. (We still couldn't distribute the LGPL bits in Spark, but I don't think you're suggesting that) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
