potiuk edited a comment on issue #9898: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/9898#issuecomment-664013108
I found very similar ticket in ASF legal which is without clear answer for > year now. I commented on it and hope to get some answers and discussions - please add your concerns there as well - I think we should really get some clarification on this. (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-437?focusedCommentId=17165258&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17165258) @kaxil -> I do not think this particular case is about the Helm Chart dependencies. This is quite a bit different story. For me, it's quite clear the images we have now (specifically Astronomer's images) have no GPL problem we discuss above . I am not worried about licence in this case - at least verbally we got confirmation that we can use it. As @mik-laj mentioned - without an official confirmation from Astronomer we simply cannot use those images because we cannot provide our users with capability of building the same binaries from the source code that we have no idea what licence covers them. But I am sure this *could* be easily solved by Astronomer explicitly adding licencing information in https://github.com/astronomer/ap-vendor/tree/master/statsd-exporter for example (it is currently missing). And there is no doubt it can be solved (and it must be solved this way or the other before we release charts). I think the case with chart images is more about making sure that we can deliver our customers the source code that they can rely on when they want to rebuild all the binary images. It took me basically a weekend to find out how to build and rebuild all the images just from the official images in DockerHub + sources. Result for this is here: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/9650. The whole problem I raised is I think the ability to easily rebuild all the binaries for our users. Istrongly feel this is an important property of the ASF software - Binary images are just "convenience" packaging. I am specifically referring to this chapter from http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what: > The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. **All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes to the software being released**. In some cases, binary/bytecode packages are also produced as a convenience to users that might not have the appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same version number as the source release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that version of the source code release. So lack of licencing in Helm chart has to be solved regardless (because we will not be able to release sources) but I think bringing the sources to "apache-airflow" controlled repos where it is not clear/easy/obvious how to build them and making it "easy" is what I am looking for in the Helm Chart dependency discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
