On 4 October 2016 at 20:21, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote: >> > After further consideration, I have a patch in flight to fix that. It >> > is a compiled source file. >> > >> > However, my question was intended to be broader. As Henry notes, there >> > are some files that are Copyright Cloudera that were not part of the >> > SGA. How shall we annotate those to let future IPMC release voters >> > understand that the files are intentionally annotated the way they >> > are? >> > >> >> Is Cloudera willing to donate them? >> > > Perhaps - but these files belong to their own, separate projects, distinct > from Apache Impala, but are a bit too small to support a community and > therefore aren't good candidates for incubation. > > Isn't the right way to address this to make a note in LICENSE.txt? That's > what we do for compatibly-licensed files which have a non-ASF copyright > holder.
They can still be donated to Impala with another Software Grant, however you would need that both from Cloudera Inc. and Sergey Lyubka (CTO of Cloudera) given the joint (c) at https://github.com/apache/incubator-impala/blob/master/be/src/thirdparty/squeasel/squeasel.c (I guess this code predates Sergey's co-founding of the Cloudera corporation) Somehow Cloudera's (c) is not noted in https://github.com/apache/incubator-impala/blob/master/be/src/thirdparty/squeasel/LICENSE and neither are listed in the top-level LICENSE - so that is what needs sorting out. Many ASF projects 'adapt' such free-hanging "bits and bobs code" under their umbrella - sometimes such code can get a "new life" - that's after all part of what open source is about. If they are in a SG it means they would be covered by the ASF license. But there should not be a big problem with them being mentioned in the LICENSE file with the compatible MIT license - at least if it's likely to be "dormant" code that won't evolve much under Apache. The only effect is that some of the protections of the ASF license then won't clearly apply - e.g. protection against patent litigation. I guess the main principle is that the 'main' project code should be covered by the software grant - having remnants from the same copyright holder that is not part of the software grant should understandably be a yellow flag. I think as a project (with mentors help) Impala will have to review if the code in question is "important enough" (e.g. contains a patented algorithm, or is core to how Impala works) to pursue additional Software Grant (or license change) from upstream or if it's just an innocent embedded dependency that can be noted it in the top level LICENSE. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
