In any case, the NOTICE files included in every jar are preserved. The Drill binary release complies *exactly* with the language "include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file".
There is no violation of OSS licenses going on here. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> > wrote: > > I admire the good-faith efforts that the Spark (and Solr) folks have put > > in attempting to comply with their interpretation of ASF requirements, > but I > > don't think we should encourage podlings to emulate the current state of > their > > licensing documentation. > > Yes, but much more importantly, it is not *violating an OSS license* > to distribute software that says 'you must include X in a NOTICE file > if you distribute this' without including X in the NOTICE file? > > Yes it means greater downstream burden, yes it may have originated > from a 'hack', but that doesn't seem to make the license not say what > it says. Obviously I'd rather not have to do this either. > > It's certainly a best practice to not put things in NOTICE that aren't > actually required. For example upstream NOTICE may refer to components > that the downstream project does not distribute. I think it's also a > good reason to think about whether a project actually needs to > distribute third-party code versus merely depend on it via Maven. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
