Hi Justin, as usual thanks a million for your thorough review. A couple of points though.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry -1 (binding) for possible inclusion of MPL licensed source code in the > source > release and uncertainty of licensing of files missing headers. > > I checked: > - incubating in name > - signatures and hashes good > - DISCLAIMER exists > - LICENSE is missing a couple of things > - NOTICE includes unnecessary copyright lines. NOTICE should be minimal [3] I don't think I can agree agree. While you're correct in principle, in practice we're talking about extra 3 lines in the NOTICE file with, I believe, most of them solving an issue of potentially missing headers that Pivotal don't have the rights to add back (we are not the copyright holders). See more below. > - Large a number of files are missing apache headers (i.e. .sh, .in, .c, .h, > .hpp, .py. .cpp files) That's on purpose. Those files are BSD licensed regardless of whether they have the BSD header. I don't think we can add the licensing BSD headers post factum (like I said Pivotal isn't a sole copyright owner). Thus I noted this following in LICENSE: =========================================================== The rest of the source code, unless explicitly marked with an Apache License header, should be assumed to be coming from previous life of MADlib as a BSD licensed project and is available under the following license: =========================================================== > LICENSE is missing: > - BSD license code in [2] Sure, but see above. > - BSD licensed [4] Ditto. > - BSD licensed [5] Ditto. > - MIT licensed [6] Now this is a great point -- we gotta fix it. > - There are several areas where file are missing headers, > it unclear if these are 3rd party files or Apache licensed file. This may > effect LICENSE and NOTICE. See above. > There may be a more serious issue with this file [7] as > it seems to be based on [8] and looks to be MPL licensed. > MPL licensed source code cannot be used in a source release. [9] Huh. That's a great point. Let me do some digging and get back to you. > I’m also not 100% what the contents of licenses/third_party/ has to do with > the source release. > There seems to be a couple of extra non bundled items in there and the items > are not mentioned > in LICENSE? Are these for a binary convenience release? Yup. That's the idea! > Other very minor things: > - best to use an apache email address for signing You're echoing my feedback here! Thanks! Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
