jbonofre closed pull request #12127: Add "clean" NOTICE/LICENSE in jar files
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
T
jbonofre commented on PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#issuecomment-2636186509
I'm talking about parquet-avro jar: it includes LICENSE mentioning avro
(correct), parquet-jackson includes LICENSE mentioning jackson and not avro
(correct).
The distributed ja
Fokko commented on PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#issuecomment-2636126820
> I have a different read according to that
https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled as we are
talking about bundle dependencies.
This is very confusin
jbonofre commented on PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#issuecomment-2635835774
> > Imho, code copied from another project documented in `LICENSE` would
make sense for source jar, not for binary jar. For binary jar, we have to
mention other binary bundled in the j
rdblue commented on PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#issuecomment-2631965497
> Imho, code copied from another project documented in `LICENSE` would make
sense for source jar, not for binary jar. For binary jar, we have to mention
other binary bundled in the jar.
jbonofre commented on PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#issuecomment-2627869831
> > Yes, my point is for non-bundle/non-runtime jar files that should use
clean LICENSE/NOTICE (remember, we should not include content in LICENSE/NOTICE
which not strictly required).
Fokko commented on PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#issuecomment-2624517923
> Yes, my point is for non-bundle/non-runtime jar files that should use
clean LICENSE/NOTICE (remember, we should not include content in LICENSE/NOTICE
which not strictly required).
jbonofre commented on code in PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#discussion_r1935335668
##
licenses/LICENSE:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+
+ Apache License
+ Version 2.0, January 2004
+
jbonofre commented on code in PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#discussion_r1935242430
##
licenses/LICENSE:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+
+ Apache License
+ Version 2.0, January 2004
+
jbonofre commented on PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#issuecomment-2623934585
> From my reading of
https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#source-tree-location technically
this is correct. The gradlew dependency is bundled with the source distribution
whi
jbonofre commented on code in PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#discussion_r1935242430
##
licenses/LICENSE:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+
+ Apache License
+ Version 2.0, January 2004
+
amogh-jahagirdar commented on code in PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#discussion_r1934737242
##
licenses/LICENSE:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+
+ Apache License
+ Version 2.0, January 2004
+
amogh-jahagirdar commented on code in PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#discussion_r1934728523
##
licenses/LICENSE:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+
+ Apache License
+ Version 2.0, January 2004
+
amogh-jahagirdar commented on code in PR #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127#discussion_r1934724011
##
licenses/LICENSE:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+
+ Apache License
+ Version 2.0, January 2004
+
jbonofre opened a new pull request, #12127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12127
Our distributed jar artifacts use the `LICENSE` and `NOTICE` from the root
directory. These `LICENSE` and `NOTICE` files are valid for source
distribution, but it's not correct for the distributed
15 matches
Mail list logo
