Yes, exactly -- the client_api.footer.in file. Thanks for clarifying on this!
Best regards, Alexey On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Alexey Serbin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Todd, > > > > Thank you for spotting the issue. > > > > Yep, we keep the directives which we changed to non-default value(s). > > > > For those, I used those auto-generated comments and added some > description > > explaining the reason for overriding. > > > > I'll remove the auto-generated part from those comments. Will send a > patch > > for review in a moment. > > > > BTW, could somebody assess the footer of the auto-generated docs? We > have > > an Apache copyright there along with 'Generated by Doxygen ...'. It > might > > make sense to verify that we are OK there as well. > > > > You mean docs/support/doxygen/client_api.footer.in right? I was just in > the > process of adding it to the RAT exclude list. > > I don't think this one's problematic. Doxygen explicitly states that the > generated docs are licensed the same as the source used to generate them. > > -Todd > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alexey > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It looks like this licensing question may affect us too. Alexey, did > you > > > use the same generaotr/template to create our doxygen config files? > Maybe > > > we should remove some of the comments to be sure we're on the right > side > > of > > > the licensing before our 1.0 release? > > > > > > -Todd > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Ryan Blue <[email protected]> > > > Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM > > > Subject: Re: Config file comments generated by GPL tools > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: "dev@impala" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > We had the same issue last year when we audited Avro's license > > > documentation. This is tracked at LEGAL-224 [1] and we did reach out to > > > doxygen [2]. The doxygen developer, Dimitri clarified that he doesn't > > > intend for the doxy config files to be GPL, but hasn't clarified the > > > license to my knowledge. In the end, we created a new config file with > > all > > > of the non-default settings and none of the nice descriptions you get > > with > > > the generated file. > > > > > > rb > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-224 > > > [2]: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755135 > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe it's worth reaching out to the doxygen authors and ask them to > > add > > > a > > > > header on that file saying that the prose in the documentation may be > > > > licensed under a different more permissive license? (e.g MIT/BSD?) > > > > > > > > -Todd > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Apache Impala (incubating) includes a file that includes > substantial > > > >> portions containing prose that is only licensed, as far as I can > tell, > > > in > > > >> a > > > >> GPL way: > > > >> > > > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.g > > > >> it;a=blob;f=be/.impala.doxy;h=4b81af4bab3c04ab60f84e29b70790 > > > >> 26e9959bf2;hb=fcb5c6821d1a0b2d49212dd791c4556dd5ac6c9e > > > >> > > > >> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/blob/b38efd15eb69b2b61e05 > > > >> ee09fc9ed6474cc8b1da/src/config.xml > > > >> > > > >> Can we keep that config file in our project as-is, or do we need to > > > remove > > > >> the prose, or perhaps some third thing? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for your help, > > > >> Jim > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Todd Lipcon > > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ryan Blue > > > Software Engineer > > > Netflix > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Todd Lipcon > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
