Yes the code in there is ALv2 licensed; appears to be either created for
Spark or copied from Hive. Yes, irrespective of the policy issue, it's
important to be able to recreate these JARs somehow, and I don't think we
have the source in the repo for all of them (at least, the ones that
originate fr
e.org"
Date: Monday, June 25, 2018 at 7:34 AM
To: "legal-disc...@apache.org"
Cc: "jus...@classsoftware.com" ,
"dev@spark.apache.org"
Subject: Re: LICENSE and NOTICE file content
@legal-discuss, brief recap:
In Spark's test source code and release, there are so
@legal-discuss, brief recap:
In Spark's test source code and release, there are some JAR files which
exist to test handling of JAR files. Example: TestSerDe.jar in
https://github.com/apache/spark/tree/master/sql/hive/src/test/resources/data/files
Justin raises the legitimate question: these don'
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 7:34 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NOTICE is not the right place for attribution, the license information
> usually include attribution (via the copyright line) and that info should
> go in LICENSE. It’s often thought that “attribution notice requirements”
> need to go
Hi,
> The CDDL, CPL, MPL license lists and ALv2 headers at bottom.
>
> CDDL, CPL and MPL are Cat B (looking at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b here). The reciprocity
> requires notice, and so I would think NOTICE is the right place? The listing
> is to comply with this
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:47 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> See [1] it’s a good idea to have a different LICENSE and NOTICE for source
> and binary (and lots of other projects do this).
>
Agree, this just never happened after I got the initial big overhaul of the
LICENSE/NOTICE in place that got thin
Hi,
> Yes, there's just one set, and it's really for the binary distribution.
See [1] it’s a good idea to have a different LICENSE and NOTICE for source and
binary (and lots of other projects do this).
> - License information is listed in NOTICE when it should be in LICENSE
>
> While I think I
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:10 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Now I'm not on your PMC, don’t know your projects history and there may be
> valid reasons for the current LICENSE and NOTICE contents so take this as
> some friendly advice, you can choose to ignore it or not act on it. Looking
> at your la
Hi,
The PR was just for the LICENSE and NOTICE you still may want to look at the
jar issue.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
Hi,
Here you go [1]. That is however only for the source, re the connivance binary
(which I’ve not checked) the LICENSE and NOTICE is very likely to be different.
It turns out the Android project does have a NOTICE file and that had an effect
on the spark one.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://github
Thanks Justin. Can you submit a pull request?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:10 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We’ve recently had a number of incubating projects copy your LICENSE and
> NOTICE files as they see Spark as a popular project and they are a little
> sad when the IPMC votes -1 on their
Hi,
We’ve recently had a number of incubating projects copy your LICENSE and NOTICE
files as they see Spark as a popular project and they are a little sad when the
IPMC votes -1 on their releases.
Now I'm not on your PMC, don’t know your projects history and there may be
valid reasons for the
12 matches
Mail list logo
