On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you should ask legal about how to have some Maven artifacts for > these. Both Ganglia and Kinesis are very widely used, so it's weird to ask > users to build them from source. Maybe the Maven artifacts can be marked as > being under a different license? > > As long as they are not part of an "Apache licensed" distribution. Note that Ganglia seems to have changed license to BSD and we might be able to better support that. > In the initial discussion for LEGAL-198, we were told the following: > > "If the component that uses this dependency is not required for the rest > of Spark to function then you can have a subproject to build the component. > See http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional. This means you > will have to provide instructions for users to enable the optional > component (which IMO should provide pointers to the licensing)." > > It's not clear whether "enable the optional component" means "every user > must build it from source", or whether we could tell users "here's a Maven > coordinate you can add to your project if you're okay with the licensing". > I think the key here is "optional", while the Kinesis is optional for Spark (which makes it ok to have it in Spark) it is not optional for Kinesis extension, which thenm IMHO, does not allow us to publish the Kinesis artifact either. But let's wait on the response from Legal before we actually implement a solution. > > Matei > > > On Sep 7, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > (Credit to Luciano for pointing it out) > > > > Yes it's clear why the assembly can't be published but I had the same > > question about the non-assembly Kinesis (and ganglia) artifact, > > because the published artifact has no code from Kinesis. > > > > See the related discussion at > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-198 ; the point I took > > from there is that the Spark Kinesis artifact is optional with respect > > to Spark, but still something published by Spark, and it requires the > > Amazon-licensed code non-optionally. > > > > I'll just ask that question to confirm or deny. > > > > (It also has some background on why the Amazon License is considered > > "Category X" in ASF policy due to field of use restrictions. I myself > > take that as read rather than know the details of that decision.) > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> > wrote: > >> I don't see a reason to remove the non-assembly artifact, why would > >> you? You're not distributing copies of Amazon licensed code, and the > >> Amazon license goes out of its way not to over-reach regarding > >> derivative works. > >> > >> This seems pretty clearly to fall in the spirit of > >> > >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional > >> > >> I certainly think the majority of Spark users will still want to use > >> Spark without adding Kinesis > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:29 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >>> It's worth calling attention to: > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-17418 > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-17422 > >>> > >>> It looks like we need to at least not publish the kinesis *assembly* > >>> Maven artifact because it contains Amazon Software Licensed-code > >>> directly. > >>> > >>> However there's a reasonably strong reason to believe that we'd have > >>> to remove the non-assembly Kinesis artifact too, as well as the > >>> Ganglia one. This doesn't mean it goes away from the project, just > >>> means it would no longer be published as a Maven artifact. (These have > >>> never been bundled in the main Spark artifacts.) > >>> > >>> I wanted to give a heads up to see if anyone a) believes this > >>> conclusion is wrong or b) wants to take it up with legal@? I'm > >>> inclined to believe we have to remove them given the interpretation > >>> Luciano has put forth. > >>> > >>> Sean > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > -- Luciano Resende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
