Unless I am misunderstanding something, which I probably am, it seems like Venkatesh and Josh are saying conflicting things. Venkatesh seems to be implying that the licenses for runtime dependencies do not need to be taken into account, while Josh seems to be be saying that the licenses of all artifacts created need to be compliant, and that the licensing of those artifacts depends on the licensing of run time dependencies. Am I missing something here?
Regarding geoindexing and indexing, those projects are somewhat coupled right now. Puja took steps to remove geoindexing from indexing in an effort to carry out 2. Going forward it might be best to make the indexes pluggable. Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Josh Elser <[email protected]> Date: 10/8/16 3:54 PM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Path forward for release Venkatesh is right in that the only "official" release in the ASF's eyes is the source release. Any JARs you publish are supplementary and technically not subject to the rules of Apache releases. The area I'm still trying to fully grok is that the source-release you publish must also create artifacts which are properly licensed[1]. Right now, that means including numerous incompatible dependencies, and, thus, does not meet the requirements of the ASL and the ASF. Regarding David's last question: I would assume that the license applies to both the source code and binary forms of the geo-related artifacts that you are currently bundling in Rya. GPL is forcing that the source code for those artifacts be available, but is not implying that the license only applies to the code in source form. "A" and 1/2 would be how I expected this to go forward (although, I'm not sure how "removing GeoIndexing" evolved into "removing Indexing" -- are they so intertwined?). The area that currently makes me feel awkward is how to interpret "optional dependencies". If every user of Rya would just be building this support anyways, that's skirting a very gray area in my current understanding of what is allowed. - Josh [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apache.org_dev_licensing-2Dhowto.html-23binary&d=CwICAw&c=Nwf-pp4xtYRe0sCRVM8_LWH54joYF7EKmrYIdfxIq10&r=vuVdzYC2kksVZR5STiFwDpzJ7CrMHCgeo_4WXTD0qo8&m=PlHBkcTuE9DcvVb1m3V1nCNNRsvZnLKrtMK1AKmYSY0&s=43QIBqVfsjovifro22HiGqmGW3Q9qY4xvKVtqPzv_x8&e= Puja Valiyil wrote: > I don't think I follow. The source references an lgpl Api, and we are > publishing binary that references it in nexus. Are you sure it's not an > issue? > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:36 PM, Seetharam Venkatesh<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> If it's a runtime dependency, you are fine. Apache only supports source >> releases. We vote on source tar ball and not binary artifacts. >> >> Makes sense? >> >> Sent from my iPhone, >> Venkatesh >> >>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 12:40 PM, David Lotts<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, geotools is a runtime dependency. No geotools source code is >>> distributed. >>> >>> By that I mean: Geotools source code is not in our source code repository. >>> Only references: imports in our *.java files and dependencies entries in >>> our pom.xml. Because of this maven will package geotools JARs (binaries) >>> in our shaded/uber JAR and WAR files that we distribute. >>> >>> With option 1 or 2 as discussed, maven will exclude the geotools jars in >>> our JARs and WARs. Users of Rya can follow some instructions that we >>> provide to add "-P indexing" (or similar) to their Maven build command >>> create their own jar/war containing the optional Rya features and geotools >>> binaries. >>> >>> Your "you should be okay." mean which of these???? >>> A. option 1 and option 2 will work around the issue and we should proceed >>> before we release, >>> - OR - >>> B. We are already in compliance and this is not a blocker for release as >>> long as we are not redistributing geotools source code. >>> >>> Hopeful for interpretation B, but expecting and happy with A. >>> >>> david. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Seetharam Venkatesh<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Quick question - geotools is a runtime dependency? Are you shipping the >>>> source code? If not, you should be okay. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone, >>>> Venkatesh >>>> >>>>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Puja Valiyil<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> Talking with Aaron, it seems like there were two paths forward for >>>>> refactoring in order to create a release. To refresh everyone's memory, >>>>> the issue was that the geo-indexing extensions to Rya pull in geotools, >>>>> which prohibits us from releasing Rya under an Apache 2 license. There >>>> may >>>>> be some more particulars that I'm glossing over -- someone please chime >>>> in >>>>> if they feel it is key to the discussion. >>>>> The two paths forward we had were: >>>>> 1. Make all of the indexing project and its downstream dependencies >>>>> optional and exclude them from a release >>>>> -- The indexing project includes several "optional" extensions to Rya >>>>> (advanced indexing strategies). Prior to Rya becoming an apache project, >>>>> these indexing extensions were optional and there was a separate profile >>>>> for including them. This option involves reverting back to that mindset. >>>>> The main argument against this is that these indexing >>>> strategies/extensions >>>>> are not in fact optional but are "core" to Rya and can't be excluded. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Refactor Rya to pull geoindexing into a separate project and exclude >>>>> that project from the release. >>>>> - We could refactor Rya to have geoindexing be its own project and add a >>>>> profile to include that in the build. This would invovle moving the >>>> class >>>>> mvm.rya.indexing.GeoIndexer and packages mem.rya.indexing.accumulo.geo >>>> and >>>>> mvm.rya.indexing.mongodb.geo to a separate project and then >>>> removing/moving >>>>> references to geoindexing anywhere else. Another option is to refactor >>>> the >>>>> GeoIndexer interface to remove the geotools dependency. >>>>> >>>>> I think #1 is a good immediate path for a release and that #2 is a good >>>>> longer term path forward. Since it's probably in our best interests as a >>>>> community to get an apache release sooner rather than later, I'd rather >>>> us >>>>> go with #1 since it would quicker. I also think that most users of Rya >>>>> would be ok with excluding the indexing project since it is not core >>>>> functionality for Rya. While #2 is a better long term plan, it involves >>>>> some pretty extensive refactoring that would be difficult to do well in a >>>>> timely manner. >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts?
