On 30 September 2016 at 11:39, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the review, Justin. I have changed the subject so as not > to clutter the VOTE thread. > > > - One possible binary file that shouldn’t be in the source release? [15] > (not sure what this is) > > This (an another couple of things in your review) might stay the same > in the next release, but be allowed (as I read it) under the licensing > rules: > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > > How should we annotate those to clarify our beliefs to voters and > reviewers? > > Another example of a confusing thing that might stay the same is the > license and copyright on > > > 9 ./be/src/thirdparty/squeasel/squeasel.? > > This might not have been part of the SGA; I'll have to check. Assuming > for the purposes of this question that it was not part of the software > grant, how can we annotate that to clarify? > This was not part of the SGA, to my knowledge. I didn't add it to LICENSE because I mistakenly thought we'd a) licensed it as ASL and b) didn't notice the copyright that needs to be preserved. It should go in LICENSE.txt as a standard MIT-licensed thirdparty dependency. Henry > > Thanks, > Jim > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
