[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1144?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15188171#comment-15188171
]
Josh Elser commented on CALCITE-1144:
-------------------------------------
bq. I now see the only difference between calcite/LICENSE and
calcite/avatica/LICENSE is that the former has a protobuf section
Thanks for clarifying Julian!
As I understand it, the source-release's LICENSE file should not contain a
section for Protobuf as Protobuf is not contained within the source-release
artifact. However the {{avatica-1.7.0.jar}}'s META-INF/LICENSE should contain
such a paragraph (as protobuf is shaded in the jar -- and thus "bundled"). This
was a goof that I made when introducing protobuf in the first place.
> Fix Avatica LICENSE file
> ------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-1144
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1144
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: avatica
> Reporter: Josh Elser
> Assignee: Josh Elser
> Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>
> Needs to say "Apache Calcite Avatica Sub Components" not "Apache Calcite Sub
> Components".
> Also, placeholder for concern about missing jekyll/sass entries from Julian.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
