Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> It's a fair point that this would be better. I'll put it on my radar.

Thanks for the consideration. If you need anything reviewed just ask.

Justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org

Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release

[Sean Owen]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
>> Which are unneeded?
>
> For starters permissive licenses are mentioned, NOTICE is for required 
> notices only. I'd suggest you ask on general @incubator mailing list for a 
> review. People there have knowledge and experience of what should and should 
> not be in a NOTICE file.

The entries at the beginning are all Category B licenses, and ...
"Software under the following licenses may be included in binary form
within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled
(see below):"

This is my understanding of "appropriate labeling".


> The source license and notice should be different from the binary licence and 
> notice as the contents of the artefacts are different. [1]

It's a fair point that this would be better. I'll put it on my radar.


> It’s never necessary to have jar in a source release, they can be compiled as 
> part of the build process. I’s suggest you read Roy’s view on this [2].

I don't think that's true, if a test needs a jar to load to test jar
loading. That's what this is AFAIK, just like including a JPEG in the
source distro to support a JPEG test. It is not black-box compiled
code that is part of the software product, which is what Roy is
correctly calling out as not OK in a source release.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org

Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

>  My understanding of the trademark policy from discussions over the past
> month is that software identifiers like Maven coordinates do not
> strictly require 'apache’.

Yes it's not required, but given the branding issues it may useful to do.

>> - The year in the NOTICE file is out of date.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.

Most NOTICE files would say 201X-2016 but the above seems a valid approach.

> Which are unneeded?

For starters permissive licenses are mentioned, NOTICE is for required notices 
only. I'd suggest you ask on general @incubator mailing list for a review. 
People there have knowledge and experience of what should and should not be in 
a NOTICE file.

> This is covering all the binary artefacts the project produces.

The source license and notice should be different from the binary licence and 
notice as the contents of the artefacts are different. [1]

> These category B artifacts are not included in source form.

So they should not be mentioned in the source license or notice files. [1]

> I think this is simply because it's hard to maintain both, and not-wrong to 
> maintain one file that
> covers both.

Having extra stuff in NOTICE is at worse a documentation error, so t’snot a 
legal issue as such and at worse a minor issue, but it does impose an extra 
burden on downstream projects. IMO would be best if this wasn’t the case, Again 
refer to the guiding principle and also [1]

> Yes the ones I'm aware of are necessary

It’s never necessary to have jar in a source release, they can be compiled as 
part of the build process. I’s suggest you read Roy’s view on this [2].

And again this is just my option as an outsider, I may be missing info etc etc 
etc. It’s certainly not legal advice or insistence that anything needs to be 
changed, that’s up to the PMC to decide.

Also no need for a long discussion on this I think I've provided enough info 
for the PMC to decide if anything needs to change or not.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
2. 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201203.mbox/%3c0f5691a1-97c0-444f-a514-b2e4e8e90...@gbiv.com%3E
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org

Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release

[Sean Owen]

In this case we're just talking about the name of the .tgz archives
that are distributed for download. I agree we would not want to change
the Maven coordinates.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Marcin Tustin  wrote:
> Changing the maven co-ordinates is going to cause everyone in the world who
> uses a maven-based build system to have update their builds. Given that sbt
> uses ivy by default, that's likely to affect almost every spark user.
>
> Unless we can articulate what the extra legal protections are (and frankly I
> don't believe that having or not having apache in the maven co-ordinates or
> jar filenames makes a jot of difference - I'm happy to be proved wrong) I'm
> strongly negative on such a change.
>
> Marcin
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Sean Owen  wrote:
>>
>> +dev
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Justin Mclean 
>> 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
>>
>
>
> Want to work at Handy? Check out our culture deck and open roles
> Latest news at Handy
> Handy just raised $50m led by Fidelity
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org

Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release

[Marcin Tustin]

Changing the maven co-ordinates is going to cause everyone in the world who
uses a maven-based build system to have update their builds. Given that sbt
uses ivy by default, that's likely to affect almost every spark user.

Unless we can articulate what the extra legal protections are (and frankly
I don't believe that having or not having apache in the maven co-ordinates
or jar filenames makes a jot of difference - I'm happy to be proved wrong)
I'm strongly negative on such a change.

Marcin

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Sean Owen  wrote:

> +dev
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Justin Mclean 
> 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
>
>

-- 
Want to work at Handy? Check out our culture deck and open roles 

Latest news  at Handy
Handy just raised $50m 

 led 
by Fidelity

Re: Some minor LICENSE and NOTICE issues with 2.0 preview release

[Sean Owen]

+dev

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Justin Mclean  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