Sounds OK to me too if that is the prevailing sentiment; I personally do not operate (non-ASF) OSS projects that way. It seems just within the letter of the law.
What about this little transitive dep of Netty I mentioned? This is not a NOTICE issue, and I *think* this one is beyond interpreting away, even if it looks so small. There are more, and other deps besides Netty. Or, I'd be happy to know why the license doesn't say what I think it says, in which case I'll apologize to everyone and buy you a beer for your time. The meta-issue is that some here seem to be arguing that IP licensing can be taken lightly because it's hard or annoying. The subtext I get is that the AL2 clause 4d is considered so minor and exasperating to comply with as to be practically ignorable? It would surprise me if that's supposed to be the takeaway, even if, hey, would kind of make some practical sense. But AL2 says what it says. Concretely, I'm suggesting a good-faith effort to review and if needed fix Drill's license issues, since a casual review seems to have identified a handful of problems (TBC: at least, we're on to: Netty's embedded dependencies not appearing in LICENSE). If someone's in a rush to get this release out, OK, deal with it after? Should I just propose a PR since I'm making trouble about it? On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > +1, lets not second guess the intention of a third party project. Lets simply > ensure *our* projects do what is required. > > If anyone here is concerned about the third party being unaware of the > results of their distribution practices then that part of this discussion > should move to the third party project. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
