+1 If this is going to be a new hard requirement the people who feel strongly about this should add something to Rat or write some kind of a plugin.
Regards, Alan On Jun 21, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Jun Rao wrote: > Kevan, > > I agree that to the benefit of users, it would be reasonable for Apache > projects to include license/notice for all dependant jars (directly or > indirectly) in a release. However, this has to be done automatically by > tools, not manually by human beings. IMO, without such tools, it's unfair > (and error prone) to make this a requirement for all Apache projects. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On Jun 21, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>> >>>>> With that said, I think it's something good and extremely useful to >> strive >>>>> for. The lack of it, i.e. extensive documentation in LICENSE/NOTICE >> with >>>>> regards to transitive dependencies, is not a showstopper IMO unless >> there >>>>> are explicit rules prohibiting it on the ASF rules. >>>> >>>> I don't have a chapter and verse to quote you. I'll work on >> getting/creating >>>> some clarification. I may not be able to start on that for the next few >>>> days... >>> >>> I feel like I'm missing something. There shouldn't be any difference >> between >>> a first-order dependency and a transitive dependency. All that matters >> is >>> whether or not the dependency is bundled, right?[1] Why would we need >> ASF >>> rules regarding *transitive* dependency license documentation in >> particular? >> >> Because Alan and I disagreed and nobody else had commented? ;-) >> >>> >>> So long as we bundle the bits, we have to bundle the licensing -- >> possibly >>> bubbling up any relevant ALv2 NOTICE provisions into the top-level NOTICE >>> since that's what the ALv2 requires. On the other hand, if the bits >> aren't >>> bundled, then the licensing shouldn't be bundled either. >>> >>> If the bundled dependencies of the canonical ASF source release and a >>> convenience binary differ, then their licensing must be analyzed >> separately >>> and may differ. >>> >>> If a project has a gazillion dependencies, regardless of whether those >>> dependencies are direct or transitive, that makes dealing with licensing >> more >>> challenging, but it doesn't change our legal obligations. >> >> I think you and I agree. Though there may be some ambiguities in what we >> mean by direct or transitive dependencies. So, attempting to clarify: >> >> I think Alan's (Kafka's) position is that dependencies don't matter since >> they are not distributing binary artifacts. >> >> I would agree with Alan, if Kafka source was simply intended to be used in >> source form. That's not the case. The Kafka project is designed to be >> built/compiled into a distribution. So, IMO, Kafka must document their >> dependencies. Note that if Kafka only had compile-time/test-time >> dependencies and simply built .jar files (and someone else was responsible >> for bundling everything together into a "distribution"), then I'd have a >> different opinion. >> >> In this case, the Kafka source release contains AL v2 licensed source code >> along with some binary artifacts under several licenses (you're welcome to >> comment on this, also). The Kafka LICENSE/NOTICE files only contain the >> licenses for this source code and the binary artifacts contained within the >> source release. They don't document the dependencies that they will bundle >> into a distribution. >> >> --kevan >> >>> >>> Marvin Humphrey >>> >>> [1] Leaving aside concerns about copyleft, field of use restrictions, >> etc. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
