For Drill, we ultimately created separate LICENSE and NOTICE files for source versus binary distribution because we kept hitting snags with the general-incubator vote. Parquet may be fine but it just kept being an issue for us at that level. You might want to review a couple of the recent discussions we had on the Drill list and general incubator list to get a sense of the climate.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/12/2014 06:53 AM, Tom White wrote: > >> The artifacts should not have rc1 in their names. This is so that when the >> vote passes they can be released without having to be rebuilt. For the >> source tarball you can place it in a directory that has rc1 in the name. >> For the Maven artifacts you should stage the release. >> >> The NOTICE file has entries for SLF4J and Apache Thrift which should not >> be >> present for the source distribution, see >> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple. >> > > Should the notice file differ between binary jars and the official source > release? I tried to make it clear in the wording that there is a source > dependency and it is only bundled with some binary distributions: "This > product depends on SLF4J and shades SLF4J in some binary artifacts." > > Is this something that should be removed or is it not best practice? I > based this on how entries are done in the Spark NOTICE file [1]. > > rb > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/v1.0.0/NOTICE#L221 > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Cloudera, Inc. >
