(Credit to Luciano for pointing it out) Yes it's clear why the assembly can't be published but I had the same question about the non-assembly Kinesis (and ganglia) artifact, because the published artifact has no code from Kinesis.
See the related discussion at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-198 ; the point I took from there is that the Spark Kinesis artifact is optional with respect to Spark, but still something published by Spark, and it requires the Amazon-licensed code non-optionally. I'll just ask that question to confirm or deny. (It also has some background on why the Amazon License is considered "Category X" in ASF policy due to field of use restrictions. I myself take that as read rather than know the details of that decision.) On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: > I don't see a reason to remove the non-assembly artifact, why would > you? You're not distributing copies of Amazon licensed code, and the > Amazon license goes out of its way not to over-reach regarding > derivative works. > > This seems pretty clearly to fall in the spirit of > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional > > I certainly think the majority of Spark users will still want to use > Spark without adding Kinesis > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:29 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> It's worth calling attention to: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-17418 >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-17422 >> >> It looks like we need to at least not publish the kinesis *assembly* >> Maven artifact because it contains Amazon Software Licensed-code >> directly. >> >> However there's a reasonably strong reason to believe that we'd have >> to remove the non-assembly Kinesis artifact too, as well as the >> Ganglia one. This doesn't mean it goes away from the project, just >> means it would no longer be published as a Maven artifact. (These have >> never been bundled in the main Spark artifacts.) >> >> I wanted to give a heads up to see if anyone a) believes this >> conclusion is wrong or b) wants to take it up with legal@? I'm >> inclined to believe we have to remove them given the interpretation >> Luciano has put forth. >> >> Sean >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
