On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:40 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> > Per NOTICE policy > > <https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice>: "Copyright > > notifications which have been relocated, rather than removed, from source > > files must be preserved in NOTICE” > > Yes the copyright line needs to be mentioned not the licenser header. > At the time, we considered the whole header to be the relevant "Copyright notification". Do you think this practice is incorrect? > > My understanding is that it is not necessary to modify NOTICE for an ASF > > dependency, if it is the boiler-plate ASF NOTICE because the project's > > notice contains "This product includes software developed at the Apache > > Software Foundation", while the LICENSE contains the copyright > information > > for individual ASF projects. > > Yes but those notice files contain more than that and are not boiler-plate. > Which ones are you referring to? I just went through the ones that you mentioned: * Spark's NOTICE doesn't have relevant portions, considering what is used is the check-license script and some Parquet vectorization code. * Same for Hive's NOTICE because the only portion of Hive that is used is a SQL file with metastore table definitions. * The relevant portion of Parquet's notice is the code from Cloudera and the Iceberg NOTICE contains the same text. * Avro's NOTICE contains mostly entries for the C# project and the only code from Avro is the decimal conversion code. * The iBATIS NOTICE contains two full relocated copyright headers, with Copyright attributed to the HSQL Development Group and the Hypersonic SQL group. ScriptRunner that is included in Iceberg was written by Clinton Begin, who started the ASF project, so those sections aren't relevant. >From double-checking, it appears that the last time we updated license documentation, we did it correctly. > > " though the ASF copyright line and any other portions of NOTICE must be > considered for propagation.” > > I don’t believe your project have done this. You'll note the copyright > line will be different depending on when you incorporated the code. > Can you explain a bit more about this? Do you think that we skipped it or just didn't do it correctly? What about the copyright lines are not correct? And what do you think we need to do to correct it? -- Ryan Blue Software Engineer Netflix
