Oops; thought I'd already +1'ed earlier in the thread. In case it wasn't clear: +1 on inclusion as-is.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > My .02 re: the copyright: the library is licensed ASL v2.0. Who it's > originally copyrighted by / to (Jonathan personally, DataStax as a corporate > entity, Santa Claus, my dog :)) doesn't really have any impact on the > legalities of our ability to make use of it or the durability or safety of > the code in our ecosystem. > > Especially for an optional feature with clear alternative implementations, > this doesn't bother me at all. It's well within ASF policy to include > permissively licensed code copyrighted by other people or entities. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, at 1:02 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: >> >>> I am confused by your +1 here. You are +1 on including it, but only if the >>> copyright were different? Given DataStax wrote the library I don’t see how >>> that will change? >> >> >> No blocker on including the library. I'm hoping we can address concerns in >> parallel, I don't want to hold things up. (They might become a blocker on >> the next release, depending on where discussions go, so we should start 'em.) >
