zyxxoo commented on code in PR #2100:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-hugegraph/pull/2100#discussion_r1094606158
##########
hugegraph-dist/release-docs/LICENSE:
##########
@@ -263,6 +263,7 @@ See licenses/ for text of these licenses.
(Apache License, Version 2.0) * Apache Log4j Core
(org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-core:2.17.1 -
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/log4j-core/)
(Apache License, Version 2.0) * Apache Log4j SLF4J Binding
(org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-slf4j-impl:2.17.1 -
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/log4j-slf4j-impl/)
(Apache License, Version 2.0) * Apache Thrift
(org.apache.thrift:libthrift:0.9.2 - http://thrift.apache.org)
+ (Apache License, Version 2.0) * JanusGraph
(https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop)
Review Comment:
@WillemJiang
hi,
Our source code only refer the janusgraph source file, but we don't refer
the maven dependency; I have modified the source license & notice and binary
license & notice to declaration it, but I'm a little unsure if binary license
is the right way to write it, the binary artifact don't have java source file,
and the janusGraph we don't refer his binary artifact(we only copy his source
file, and the source file become class file);
for example:
we source file refer the A project a.java source file
1. the binary license whether need declaration "a.class from
https://githu.com/A";
2. if we don't refer A.jar (only source file), do we write "A
(https://github.com/A"; or "A (org.A:A:0.0.1 - https://github.com/A)"?
3. if archive file path is different between source path and binary
artifact; can we only copy source license to binary license?
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hugegraph.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
