```It is important to keep NOTICE as brief and simple as possible, as each addition places a burden on downstream consumers.
Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required. ``` https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice apache.org Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE. Home page of The Apache Software Foundation On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Robert Butts <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't agree with > https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/commit/d7422b3f05f2628de07614efa20799b01cfc1e41 > "remove from NOTICE to keep it short " > > While the MIT doesn't require Attribution, Daniel and the SecLists project > originally did, it was very specifically licensed "CC Attribution", and > they graciously changed for us. > > It seems rather rude not to include Attribution in accordance with their > original wishes, even if we aren't legally required to. > > Is there a strong objection to keeping the NOTICE Attribution for them? > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Dave Neuman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I merged it, you need to do a backport to 2.1 as well. >> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Robert Butts <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > PR updating the license: >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/pull/1681 >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Chris Lemmons <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > https://github.com/danielmiessler/SecLists is now licensed MIT. >> > > Thanks, Eric, for talking to Daniel Miessler for us and getting this >> > > taken care of! >> > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Chris Lemmons <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > Excellent, Eric. That neatly cleans up the problem. I do think we >> > > > should merge my PR (1677), regardless, if for no other reason than to >> > > > honour the authors' attribution request. >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> I emailed the owner of the password file earlier today and he agreed >> > to >> > > change or dual-license the project to MIT. >> > > >> >> > > >> —Eric >> > > >> >> > > >>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 3:40 PM, Phil Sorber <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Rob, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Just because we remove it for now doesn't mean we have to leave it >> > out >> > > >>> forever. I encourage you to contribute to the thread on the legal >> > > mailing >> > > >>> list to make your case or at least get an understanding of their >> > > >>> requirements. The ASF does tend to lean toward conservative >> > > interpretations. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Thanks. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:08 PM Robert Butts < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> That's correct. No RPM, unfortunately. License is here: >> > > >>>> https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Projects/OWASP_SecLists_Project. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> -1 on downloading during rpmbuild, or especially postinstall. Both >> > > pose a >> > > >>>> security risk. Moreover, it makes our build or install dependent >> on >> > > the >> > > >>>> internet and a particular website. Neither building nor installing >> > > should >> > > >>>> require either internet or a particular website; we should be >> > working >> > > to >> > > >>>> get away from that, not towards it. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> I'd prefer to find something Apache is ok with vendoring, if we >> have >> > > to. >> > > >>>> Though, ideally we'd keep this one, Daniel Miessler is a >> well-known >> > > name in >> > > >>>> the security community. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Dan Kirkwood <[email protected] >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> Thanks, Eric.. Then it's possible we could download it during >> > > >>>>> rpmbuild or postinstall. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) >> > > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> It can be downloaded from Github. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I think this is the file (Rob correct me if I picked the wrong >> > > >>>> variant): >> > > >>>>> https://github.com/danielmiessler/SecLists/blob/ >> > > >>>>> master/Passwords/10_million_password_list_top_100000.txt >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> —Eric >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 1:38 PM, Dan Kirkwood <[email protected] >> > > <mailto: >> > > >>>> dang >> > > >>>>> [email protected]>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Rob, is there a specific download location for this file? I >> > see >> > > it >> > > >>>>>> referenced as "Projects/OWASP SecLists Project", but didn't >> find >> > it >> > > >>>>>> with a quick search. Is it possible it's provided by an rpm we >> > > could >> > > >>>>>> list as a dependency rather than including in our source? >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> -dan >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Robert Butts < >> > > >>>> [email protected] >> > > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> I'd really like to keep this, or replace it with a similar file >> > from >> > > >>>>>> another source. Which I'd be willing to investigate, if >> necessary. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Having a good blacklist of most-common passwords specifically >> puts >> > > >>>>> Traffic >> > > >>>>>> Ops in compliance with NIST SP 800-63B. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I also don't understand the objections, the Apache Legal FAQ >> > > >>>> specifically >> > > >>>>>> says CC-SA is permissible, and doesn't say anything about being >> > > limited >> > > >>>>> to >> > > >>>>>> binary (which would be odd, CC is designed for text, not >> binary). >> > > >>>>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I'd vote we wait for the legal resolution, or find a suitable >> > > >>>>> replacement, >> > > >>>>>> in order to remain in NIST compliance. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:55 AM, David Neuman < >> > > >>>> [email protected] >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Hey all, >> > > >>>>>> I don't know if you have been following the release 2.1 thread >> on >> > > the >> > > >>>>>> incubator list [1] , but we have been given a -1 vote by the >> IPMC >> > > for >> > > >>>>>> having a file in our release [2] that has an incompatible >> license. >> > > >>>> There >> > > >>>>>> is some debate about the license, and we have reached out to >> Legal >> > > for >> > > >>>>> more >> > > >>>>>> information [3] (thanks Eric!), but we haven't heard back from >> > legal >> > > >>>> yet. >> > > >>>>>> Instead of waiting for legal to get back to us, I would like to >> > > propose >> > > >>>>>> that we instead remove this file from our release. The file in >> > > >>>> question >> > > >>>>> is >> > > >>>>>> just a list of weak passwords and I feel like we can easily >> > include >> > > a >> > > >>>>> blank >> > > >>>>>> file, or a file with a couple passwords that we generate, and >> > > >>>> individual >> > > >>>>>> installs of Traffic Control can replace this file as they see >> fit. >> > > >>>> This >> > > >>>>>> will >> > > >>>>>> remove issue of having an incompatible license in our release >> and >> > > >>>> should >> > > >>>>>> also not require us to do a code change. The downside of >> removing >> > > this >> > > >>>>>> file is that we will need to create another 2.1 release >> candidate >> > > and >> > > >>>> go >> > > >>>>>> through the vote process again. I would really like to see us >> get >> > > 2.1 >> > > >>>>>> released before the end of the year, and at this point our >> chances >> > > are >> > > >>>>>> looking pretty slim. So, does anyone object to removing this >> file >> > > from >> > > >>>>> our >> > > >>>>>> release? If not, I will put an issue into github, remove the >> > file, >> > > and >> > > >>>>>> back port the change so that we can get another 2.1 release >> > > candidate >> > > >>>>> out. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Thanks, >> > > >>>>>> Dave >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> [1] >> > > >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ >> > c211f049e3d68af90196c30f6b6d31 >> > > >>>>>> a67b3072029dea1efe7d35c9dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E >> > > >>>>>> [2] >> > > >>>>>> apache-trafficcontrol-2.1.0-incubating/traffic_ops/app/ >> > > >>>>>> conf/invalid_passwords.txt >> > > >>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-356 >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
