Thank you Rebo. I agree with reverting first and then figure out the next steps.
Here is a PR to revert your change: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14267 On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:02 PM Robert Burke <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at the history it seems that before the python text was added, > pkg.go.dev can parse the license stack just fine. It doesn't recognize > the PSF license, and fails closed entirely as a result. > > I've filed an issue with pkg.go.dev ( > https://github.com/golang/go/issues/45095). If the bug is fixed, the > affected versions will become visible as well. > > In the meantime, we should revert my change which clobbered the other > licenses and probably cherry pick it into the affected release branches. > > The PSF license is annoying as it's explicitly unique. Nothing but python > can use it and call it the PSF license. However it is a redistribution > friendly license, which is what matters. > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 3:00 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thank you for this email. >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:32 PM Brian Hulette <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I just noticed that there was a recent change to our LICENSE file to >>> make it exactly match the Apache 2.0 License [1]. This seems to be the >>> result of two conflicting LICENSE issues. >>> >>> Go LICENSE issue: The motivation for [1] was to satisfy pkg.go.dev's >>> license policies [2]. Prior to the change our documentation didn't show up >>> there [3]. >>> >>> Java artifact LICENSE issue: The removed text contained information >>> relevant to "convenience binary distributions". This text was added in [4] >>> as a result of this dev@ thread [5], where we noticed that copyright >>> notices were missing in binary artifacts. The suggested solution (that we >>> went with) was to just add the information to the root (source) LICENSE. >>> >> >> Python distribution is missing both files as well. ( >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1746) >> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure that that solution is consistent with this ASF guide [6] >>> which states: >>> >>> > The LICENSE and NOTICE files must *exactly* represent the contents of >>> the distribution they reside in. Only components and resources that are >>> actually included in a distribution have any bearing on the content of that >>> distribution's NOTICE and LICENSE. >>> >>> I would argue that *just* Apache 2.0 is the correct text for our root >>> (source) LICENSE, and the correct way to deal with binary artifacts is to >>> generate per-artifact LICENSE/NOTICE files. >>> >> >> I do not know how to interpret this ASF guide. As an example from another >> project: airflow also has a LICENSE file, NOTICE file, and a licenses >> directory. There are even overlapping mentions. >> >> >>> >>> >>> So right now the Go issue is fixed, but the Java artifact issue has >>> regressed. I can think of two potential solutions to resolve both: >>> 1) Restore the "convenience binary distributions" information, and see >>> if we can get pkg.go.dev to allow it. >>> 2) Add infrastructure to generate LICENSE and NOTICE files for Java >>> binary artifacts. >>> >>> I have no idea how we might implement (2) so (1) seems more tenable, but >>> less correct since it's adding information not relevant to the source >>> release. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11657 >>> [2] https://pkg.go.dev/license-policy >>> [3] >>> https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/apache/[email protected]+incompatible/sdks/go/pkg/beam >>> [4] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5461 >>> [5] >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6ef6630e908147ee83e1f1efd4befbda43efb2a59271c5cb49473103@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>> [6] https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html >>> >>
