On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:48 AM Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 9, 2020, at 5:56 PM, Aaron Radzinski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Paul, > > 1. Yes, no third party source code was used/included. > > +1 > > > 2. As far as SGA I believe we have to submit it before graduation. > There's > > no requirement to get it done for the 1st release. > > SGA is required to make a release. RVS can confirm. > I don't know whether the WIP disclaimer could help here. Can others comment? > > 3. Our binary is an all-inclusive JAR that bundles all dependencies > (except > > for GPLv3 licensed ones). > > *1 > > Regards, > Dave > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Aaron Radzinski > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:05 PM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The source code license looks good to me (on the presumption that no > third > >> party source code is included which I believe is the case). > >> There was mention earlier of DataLingvo executing an SGA. Has that > >> occurred? (question for Nikita?) > >> > >> The NOTICE file for source code shouldn't have the additional > >> entries, e.g.: > >> > >>> OpenZipkin > >>> Copyright 2015-2020 The OpenZipkin Authors > >>> ASLv2 License > >> > >> would be needed only if you had a source file from OpenZipkin included > in > >> NLPCraft source code. > >> > >> For "Complementary Binary Release", is that a jar which is just the > >> compiled source code or a zip bundle with dependencies? > >> In general, a convenience binary jar would not need to address > >> license/notice issues for transitive dependencies. > >> A zip bundle would need something close to your suggestion. > >> > >> Cheers, Paul. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Aaron Radzinski < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Paul, et. al., > >>> Based on these examples here's what I've come up with. NLPCraft will > have > >>> both ASF (source) release and complimentary binaries, and they will > have > >>> separate LICENSE files. > >>> > >>> ASF (source code) Release: > >>> - LICENSE > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-nlpcraft/blob/master/LICENSE > >>> - NOTICE > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nlpcraft/blob/master/NOTICE > >>> > >>> Complimentary Binary Release: > >>> - LICENSE > >>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nlpcraft/blob/master/bindist/LICENSE > >>> - NOTICE > https://github.com/apache/incubator-nlpcraft/blob/master/NOTICE > >>> > >>> NOTE: NOTICE file is the same for both releases. > >>> > >>> Thoughts, comments? > >>> -- > >>> Aaron Radzinski > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:40 AM Furkan KAMACI <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Here is another example which has been graduated just a couple of > months > >>>> ago: https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/LICENSE > >>>> > >>>> Kind Regards, > >>>> Furkan KAMACI > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:49 PM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> The LICENSE and NOTICE from NIFI look good to me for the source > >>>> artifact: > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nifi > >>>>> > >>>>> The LICENSE and NOTICE for the NIFI bundle also look good to me: > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nifi/tree/master/nifi-assembly > >>>>> > >>>>> HTH, Paul. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:43 PM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Most projects should be the same. I am most familiar with Groovy and > >>>>>> believe it is done correctly there. Gradle is used for building > which > >>>>> might > >>>>>> make it harder to mimic given NLPCraft is using maven. I'll take a > >>>> quick > >>>>>> look at some others ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 6:53 PM Aaron Radzinski < > >>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Paul, > >>>>>>> Can you point to some ASF project(s) that has done it right? I've > >>>> looked > >>>>>>> at several and they all seem to be doing differently... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Aaron Radzinski > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:21 PM Paul King <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Another important concept is that for any artifact, the included > >>>>>>>> NOTICE/LICENSE should be the minimum required for that artifact > (or > >>>>>>>> instead > >>>>>>>> of thinking it as the minimum, think just accurately specified for > >>>> that > >>>>>>>> artifact). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So, the list you provide would possibly be appropriate for a zip > >>>>>>>> distribution, assuming that is desirable. If that is needed, I'd > >>>> change > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> wording from: > >>>>>>>> "NLPCraft project uses or integrates with the following 3rd party > >>>>>>>> software > >>>>>>>> (binary dependencies) that is licensed under non-Apache License > >>>> 2.0" > >>>>>>>> to something like: > >>>>>>>> "This NLPCraft distribution bundles 3rd party binary dependencies > >>>> that > >>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> licensed as outlined below." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In general, the source distribution LICENSE would not need (and > >>>>> therefore > >>>>>>>> should not have) those entries listed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A binary jar artifact suitable for publishing in a repo, assuming > >>>> one > >>>>> is > >>>>>>>> needed, would also not need most (if not all) of those entries. > The > >>>>>>>> LICENSE > >>>>>>>> and NOTICE pertain to the artifact itself not listed dependencies > >>>>> (which > >>>>>>>> will already contain their own LICENSE/NOTICE info). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'd also expect in general modifications to the NOTICE file. It > >>>> would > >>>>>>>> include any copyright notice sections from even ASF2 licensed > >>>>>>>> dependencies > >>>>>>>> which aren't specifically "copyright ASF", e.g. might be > >>>> individuals. > >>>>> In > >>>>>>>> addition, if any of the third party licenses request some kind of > >>>>>>>> acknowledgement, that would go in the NOTICE file(s). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cheers, Paul. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 10:58 AM Aaron Radzinski < > >>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Paul, Roman, et. al., > >>>>>>>>> I've listed non-ASF2.0 licenses for our dependencies here: > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-nlpcraft/blob/master/LICENSE > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Please review and let me know if this passes the muster. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Aaron Radzinski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik < > >>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:48 PM Aaron Radzinski > >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Mentors, > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm confused on how to (and why) list licenses for all > >>>> project's > >>>>>>>>>>> dependencies. To do it explicitly is a major time sink and > >>>> it's > >>>>>>>> very > >>>>>>>>> hard > >>>>>>>>>>> to maintain it this way going forward. How do projects > >>>> approach > >>>>>>>> this in > >>>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>> automated way? Will this be enough to provide an Apache RAT > >>>>> report? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It depends on what you want to distribute. There are two > >>>> artifacts > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> you can > >>>>>>>>>> distribute: > >>>>>>>>>> #1 source code tarball > >>>>>>>>>> #2 binary convenience archives (of any kind) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> For both your downstream consumers have know *exactly* what > >>>>> licenses > >>>>>>>>>> are covering: > >>>>>>>>>> #1 every single line of code in every file > >>>>>>>>>> #2 every single bit > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Now, #1 is somewhat easier since all the new code is going to > >>>> be > >>>>>>>> licensed > >>>>>>>>>> under ALv2. Still, there will be cases when you (or your build > >>>>>>>> system) > >>>>>>>>>> statically pulls source code in that ends up in your release > >>>> source > >>>>>>>>> tarball > >>>>>>>>>> that wasn't developed by you and is available under a different > >>>>>>>> license. > >>>>>>>>>> That has to be tracked very, very carefully. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In fact, that is exactly why a lot of downstream consumers > >>>> trust > >>>>> ASF > >>>>>>>>>> (that we won't subject them to anything by ALv2 compatible > >>>>> licenses) > >>>>>>>>>> and don't trust a random GH project where somebody simply > >>>> slapped > >>>>>>>>>> an ALv2 license on their repo. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As for #2 -- this is where the hell typically breaks lose and > >>>>> that's > >>>>>>>>> where > >>>>>>>>>> you either do the same good job you do with #1 (there are not > >>>>>>>>>> shortcuts -- sorry) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> OR > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You simply decide NOT to release binary artifacts and make them > >>>>>>>>>> responsibility of somebody else. A typical example of somebody > >>>>>>>>>> else would be a Linux Distribution company. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Or it can even be yourself with your individual's hat on -- it > >>>> just > >>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>> NOT > >>>>>>>>>> be ASF unless we can do the same due diligence we do for #1. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>> Roman. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >
