[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1144?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15188202#comment-15188202
]
Josh Elser commented on CALCITE-1144:
-------------------------------------
bq. Neither Calcite nor Avatica has a binary release, so we don't need to worry
about what is in JARs, shaded or otherwise.
On the contrary, the jars that we deploy to Maven central *do* constitute a
binary release. That's why they contain the LICENSE and NOTICE automatically
when using the Apache parent pom. The onus is on us to make sure they are
actually correct. I can dig up the appropriate docs on this if you'd like (been
slapped on this one before elsewhere).
bq. We do have to worry about the protoc-generated Java files that are in the
source release (previously in the Calcite source release, now in the Avatica
source release). I don't know whether they require any LICENSE or NOTICE
entries.
It's my understanding that code generated by protobuf is not also subject to
the license of protobuf itself -- we get to determine what the generated code
is licensed as. As such, that's why I don't think the L&N for our source
release needs it.
> 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)
