potiuk commented on issue #9898:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/9898#issuecomment-664015535
@bolkedebruin -> there are three distinct problems here I think (started to
write it in parallel to Kaxil but I think we have very close view on the scope
of the questions we have). I renumbered my points to have the same numbers as
Kaxil, and add my view/thinking for them.
1) Question whether we depend on X licence (GPL basically) in order to get
Airflow up and running, IMHO (similar to Kaxil) the answer is "no" - those are
all optional libraries and not essential (extras or build tools).
2) Question whether introducing several of those GPL binaries in our Docker
image is "ok" in terms of releasing "convenience binaries" from Apache point of
view. IMHO - this is also OK (same way as we are relying on glibc for example
to run basically anything in the image)
3) Question whether the users are able to use our sources released formally
by us to build the software without depending on 3rd party "unofficially"
released binaries/images ("official" is what I define by
https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_images/ ), I think this is not a
licencing issue, this is more of a "user" convenience issue - how easy it is
for our users to use sources we release to rebuild the software we release. I
think we are good for that for the Dockerfile (source) -> it's easy to build
docker image by the users.
But it's not (currently) easy for the Helm Chart as it relies on a few
external images that are not easy/clear to know how to build and we are not
releasing sources to build them. IMHO - we should bring the sources to rebuild
those in and release the sources officially - together with the Helm Chart.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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]
