+dev On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Anyway looking at the preview I noticed a few minor things: > - Most release artefacts have the word “apache” in them the ones at [1] do > not. Adding “apache” gives you some extra legal protection.
As to why just 'spark' -- I believe it's merely historical. My understanding of the trademark policy from discussions over the past month is that software identifiers like Maven coordinates do not strictly require 'apache'. I don't imagine that's hard to change; I don't know if it causes some disruption downstream or what. Hence it has just stood as is. > - The year in the NOTICE file is out of date. These days most NOTICE files > have a year range. I can change that to "Copyright 2014 and onwards" for completeness, yes. > - The NOTICE file seems to contains a lot of unneeded content [3] Which are unneeded? I created it a long while ago to contain what it needed, and have tried to prune or add to it as needed. I could have missed something. This is covering all the binary artifacts the project produces. > - The NOTICE file lists CDDL and EPL licenses, I believe these should be in > the LICENSE/NOTICE file for the binary distribution and not the source > distribution. CDDL and EPL licensed code are category B not allowed to be > bundled in source releases. [2] A LICENSE / NOTICE should match to what is > actually bundled into the artefact. [4] These category B artifacts are not included in source form. Yes, these entries are for the binary distribution. There is one NOTICE file for both binary and source distributions. I think this is simply because it's hard to maintain both, and not-wrong to maintain one file that covers both. > - The source release contains a number of jars. (Looks like they are used for > testing but still…) Yes the ones I'm aware of are necessary -- like, they're literally testing how UDF jars get loaded by certain code paths. I think that's not what the prohibition against jars in source distros is trying to get at. It's not distributing functional code in binary-only form. > - The LICENSE may to be missing a few things like for instance moderizr [5] I agree, good catch. This is MIT-licensed and it's not in licenses/. I'll fix that. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
