kou commented on pull request #9507: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/9507#issuecomment-783695257
Generally, the general language plus ... approach looks good to me. But the added words concern me. The approach mentions that `string_expressions.rs` has PostgreSQL licensed codes/documentations but doesn't mention that which codes/documentations use PostgreSQL license explicitly, right? (`string_expressions.rs` has ASF copyrighted Apache License 2.0 codes/documentations and The PostgreSQL Global Development Group copyrighted PostgreSQL license codes/documentations. But we don't mention which codes/documentations are licensed under PostgreSQL license.) I'm not sure that it satisfies "provided that the above copyright notice" in PostgreSQL license. --- I found a guideline when we use third-party works: https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party > Treatment of Third-Party Works > 0. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent. This includes parts of a work submitted directly to the ASF for which the submitter is not the copyright owner or owner's agent. > 1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within third-party works. > 2. Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download site into the distribution. > 3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party source files. > 4. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the third-party source for convenience. > 5. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the PMC If we don't mention PostgreSQL derived codes/documentations explicitly, I think that we and users can't associate PostgreSQL derived codes/documentations with The PostgreSQL Global Development Group copyright. I'm not sure that it satisfies 1. If we choose 4. approach, can we use `arrow/rust/datafusion/src/physical_plan/string_expressions.rs` only for our original implementations that are licensed under Apache License 2.0 and `arrow/rust/datafusion/src/physical_plan/string_postgresql_expressions.rs` (os something) for PostgreSQL derived works that are licensed under PostgreSQL license? If we choose 5. approach, we should discuss this on dev@. --- Anyway, I think that we should discuss this on dev@. If we need, ASF will help us with legal concerns. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
