[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-13780?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15801053#comment-15801053
]
Sean Busbey commented on HADOOP-13780:
--------------------------------------
{quote}
bq. The jQuery entries look to cover things other than the bundling that's in
the HBase Server 1.1.3 jar. Also the jQuery Foundation copyright entry is
missing any year(s). The bit bundled in the HBase jar is version 1.8.3 with (c)
2012.
jquery actually has been like this long ago... Looking at
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps , is the year
required?
I'm guessing the current way is written without year because the first 2 are
2005, 2013 and the last is 2012:
{code}
...
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/main/webapps/static/jquery-1.10.2.min.js
hadoop-tools/hadoop-sls/src/main/html/js/thirdparty/jquery.js
hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-common/src/main/resources/webapps/static/jquery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright jQuery Foundation and other contributors, https://jquery.org/
...
{code}
I'll be happy to update accordingly, but wanted to make sure - apache licensing
seems is saying 'add a pointer', 'short note summarizing', and the example
there didn't even mention copyright...
{quote}
The jQuery license specifically says the copyright notice has to be reproduced,
so I'd presume that means the year is a relevant part of that reproduction.
It's pretty easy to just list
bq. Copyright 2005, 2012, 2013 jQuery Foundation and other contributors,
https://jquery.org
Wether or not we include the copyright date, in v4 the jquery LICENSE section
still needs to call out that there's a copy of 1.8.3 bundled in the hbase
server jar.
It looks like the hbase version changed from 1.1.3 in v3 to 1.2.4 in v4. I
don't think there was any substantial LICENSE/NOTICE change between those
versions, but I don't have time to confirm ATM. I don't think it's worth
holding things up for that; I'll just file a follow-on if I find something.
While reviewing the update for v4, I noticed there's an added blurb for a
dependency that's BSD 4-clause. BSD 4-clause is the variant "with advertising
clause" that's called out [in the legal
FAQ|http://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-a] as not being category-a. It's
not listed as any particular category, and isn't lised by the OSI. We can file
a LEGAL asking if it's fine, but I suspect it isn't. Are we sure the version of
JDOM we're using is BSD 4-clause? The [current version of JDOM uses a one-off
license|https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/blob/master/LICENSE.txt] that
reads as cat-a to me (possibly calling for a NOTICE inclusion as well as
LICENSE).
> LICENSE/NOTICE are out of date for source artifacts
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-13780
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-13780
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: common
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha2
> Reporter: Sean Busbey
> Assignee: Xiao Chen
> Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: HADOOP-13780.01.patch, HADOOP-13780.02.patch,
> HADOOP-13780.03-with-scripts.patch, HADOOP-13780.03.patch,
> HADOOP-13780.04-with-scripts.patch, HADOOP-13780.04.patch
>
>
> we need to perform a check that all of our bundled works are properly
> accounted for in our LICENSE/NOTICE files.
> At a minimum, it looks like HADOOP-10075 introduced some changes that have
> not been accounted for.
> e.g. the jsTree plugin found at
> {{hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-common/src/main/resources/webapps/static/jt/jquery.jstree.js}}
> does not show up in LICENSE.txt to (a) indicate that we're redistributing it
> under the MIT option and (b) give proper citation of the original copyright
> holder per ASF policy.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
