For Q1 - I have the feeling that if we asked the powers that be at Apache for an opinion on bundling the MySQL connector that they would not be fans of the idea -- mostly because it is not allowed for binary tarball releases, and I don't see why it would be different for Docker releases. So because of that, I wouldn't be comfortable bundling the mysql-connector jar unless we actually _did_ ask the powers that be, and they said it's ok. The powers that be are probably either ASF Legal or the Incubator PMC.
For Q2 - IMO precedent established by other projects means this is not likely an issue. Probably because of the mere-aggregation reason you brought up. If we want to release official Docker images then this will also need to be incorporated into our build process. Don are you interested in researching / proposing how that might be done? Anyone else - should we have a discussion about whether we want official Docker images as part of our release process? Personally, if it doesn't impose much additional burden on release managers, and the image is something that is easy to run in production in a way that we are comfortable supporting as a community, I am for it. (I haven't reviewed the PR enough to have an opinion on that.) On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:53 PM Don Bowman <d...@agilicus.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 13:17, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > > For Q1 the legal guidance as I understand it is that we can provide users > > with instructions for how to get optional (L)GPL dependencies, but we > can't > > distribute them ourselves. Putting the mysql-connector in an Docker image > > does feel like distribution… > > > > Q2 is an interesting question. I wonder if Apache has a policy on > official > > or semiofficial Docker containers that touches on the possibly thorny > > licensing questions. It seems that they do exist for other projects, > > though: https://hub.docker.com/u/apache. The Zeppelin one, for example, > is > > based on ubuntu so it must have plenty of GPL stuff in it: > > https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/zeppelin/dockerfile. And it is presented > > on > > the Zeppelin page as an official thing: > > https://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.7.0/install/docker.html. > > > > I dunno, it feels weird to me, and I am searching for evidence of these > > issues having been explicitly discussed by other projects but have not > > found it yet. > > > > > > > GPL does not attach by mere aggregation. [see GPL FAQ > <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation>] > All linux is gpl, and all the containers are linux for all the other apache > foundation things (maven, httpd, ...). even debian has bash in it, which is > gpl. > > so I can either: > > a) continue as is. I want to get this on dockerhub auto-built, that's what > he script does now. BTW, it downloads the gpl code from maven repository, > which is also run by apache. > b) remove it, support postgres only. > > both are ok w/ me I suppose. >
