Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Thanks, Sean! Sean Owen wrote on 09/25/2015 06:35:46 AM: > From: Sean Owen > To: Reynold Xin , Richard Hillegas/San > Francisco/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: "dev@spark.apache.org" > Date: 09/25/2015 07:21 PM > Subject: Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s > > Work underway at ... > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-10833 > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/8919 > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > > Update: I *think* the conclusion was indeed that nothing needs to > > happen with NOTICE. > > However, along the way in > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-226 it emerged that the > > BSD/MIT licenses should be inlined into LICENSE (or copied in the > > distro somewhere). I can get on that -- just some grunt work to copy > > and paste it all. > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Reynold Xin wrote: > >> Richard, > >> > >> Thanks for bringing this up and this is a great point. Let's start another > >> thread for it so we don't hijack the release thread. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Richard Hillegas > >>> wrote: > >>> > Under your guidance, I would be happy to help compile a NOTICE file > >>> > which > >>> > follows the pattern used by Derby and the JDK. This effort might proceed > >>> > in > >>> > parallel with vetting 1.5.1 and could be targeted at a later release > >>> > vehicle. I don't think that the ASF's exposure is greatly increased by > >>> > one > >>> > more release which follows the old pattern. > >>> > >>> I'd prefer to use the ASF's preferred pattern, no? That's what we've > >>> been trying to do and seems like we're even required to do so, not > >>> follow a different convention. There is some specific guidance there > >>> about what to add, and not add, to these files. Specifically, because > >>> the AL2 requires downstream projects to embed the contents of NOTICE, > >>> the guidance is to only include elements in NOTICE that must appear > >>> there. > >>> > >>> Put it this way -- what would you like to change specifically? (you > >>> can start another thread for that) > >>> > >>> >> My assessment (just looked before I saw Sean's email) is the same as > >>> >> his. The NOTICE file embeds other projects' licenses. > >>> > > >>> > This may be where our perspectives diverge. I did not find those > >>> > licenses > >>> > embedded in the NOTICE file. As I see it, the licenses are cited but not > >>> > included. > >>> > >>> Pretty sure that was meant to say that NOTICE embeds other projects' > >>> "notices", not licenses. And those notices can have all kinds of > >>> stuff, including licenses. > >>> > >>> - > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >>> > >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Work underway at ... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-10833 https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/8919 On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > Update: I *think* the conclusion was indeed that nothing needs to > happen with NOTICE. > However, along the way in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-226 it emerged that the > BSD/MIT licenses should be inlined into LICENSE (or copied in the > distro somewhere). I can get on that -- just some grunt work to copy > and paste it all. > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Reynold Xin wrote: >> Richard, >> >> Thanks for bringing this up and this is a great point. Let's start another >> thread for it so we don't hijack the release thread. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sean Owen wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Richard Hillegas >>> wrote: >>> > Under your guidance, I would be happy to help compile a NOTICE file >>> > which >>> > follows the pattern used by Derby and the JDK. This effort might proceed >>> > in >>> > parallel with vetting 1.5.1 and could be targeted at a later release >>> > vehicle. I don't think that the ASF's exposure is greatly increased by >>> > one >>> > more release which follows the old pattern. >>> >>> I'd prefer to use the ASF's preferred pattern, no? That's what we've >>> been trying to do and seems like we're even required to do so, not >>> follow a different convention. There is some specific guidance there >>> about what to add, and not add, to these files. Specifically, because >>> the AL2 requires downstream projects to embed the contents of NOTICE, >>> the guidance is to only include elements in NOTICE that must appear >>> there. >>> >>> Put it this way -- what would you like to change specifically? (you >>> can start another thread for that) >>> >>> >> My assessment (just looked before I saw Sean's email) is the same as >>> >> his. The NOTICE file embeds other projects' licenses. >>> > >>> > This may be where our perspectives diverge. I did not find those >>> > licenses >>> > embedded in the NOTICE file. As I see it, the licenses are cited but not >>> > included. >>> >>> Pretty sure that was meant to say that NOTICE embeds other projects' >>> "notices", not licenses. And those notices can have all kinds of >>> stuff, including licenses. >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > regarding the spark one, I don't see that you need to refer to transitive > dependencies for the non-binary distros, and, for any binaries, to bother > listing the licensing of all the ASF dependencies. Things pulled in from > elsewhere & pasted in, that's slightly more complex. The requirements for including source can be different. There's not much of it. There's not really a "transitive dependency" for source, as it is self-contained if copied into the project. I think the source stuff is dealt with correctly in LICENSE. Yes you also don't end up needing to repeat the licensing for ASF dependencies. The issue is BSD/MIT here as far as I can tell (so-called permissive licenses). > Uber-JARs, such as spark.jar, do contain lots of classes from everywhere. I > don't know the status of them. You could probably get maven to work out the > licensing if all the dependencies declare their license. Indeed, that's exactly why we have to deal with license stuff since Spark does redistribute other code (not just depend on it). And yes, using Maven to dig out this info is just what I have done :) It's not that we missed dependencies, and it's not an issue of NOTICE, but rather BSD/MIT licenses in LICENSE. The net-net is: inline them. > On that topic, note that marcelo's proposal to break up that jar and add > lib/*.jar to the CP would allow codahale's ganglia support to come in just by > dropping in the relevant LGPL JAR, avoiding the need to build a custom spark > JAR tainted by the transitive dependency. (We still couldn't distribute the LGPL bits in Spark, but I don't think you're suggesting that) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
> On 24 Sep 2015, at 21:11, Sean Owen wrote: > > Yes, but the ASF's reading seems to be clear: > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps > "In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the > source tree and a short note summarizing its licensing:" > > I'd be concerned if you get a different interpretation from the ASF. I > suppose it's OK to ask the question again, but for the moment I don't > see a reason to believe there's a problem. Having looked at the notice, I actually see a lot more thorough that most ASF projects. in contrast, here is the hadoop one: --- This product includes software developed by The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). --- regarding the spark one, I don't see that you need to refer to transitive dependencies for the non-binary distros, and, for any binaries, to bother listing the licensing of all the ASF dependencies. Things pulled in from elsewhere & pasted in, that's slightly more complex. I've just been dealing with the issue of taking an openstack-applied patch to the hadoop swift object store code -and, because the licenses are compatible, we're just going to stick it in as-is. Uber-JARs, such as spark.jar, do contain lots of classes from everywhere. I don't know the status of them. You could probably get maven to work out the licensing if all the dependencies declare their license. On that topic, note that marcelo's proposal to break up that jar and add lib/*.jar to the CP would allow codahale's ganglia support to come in just by dropping in the relevant LGPL JAR, avoiding the need to build a custom spark JAR tainted by the transitive dependency. -Steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Update: I *think* the conclusion was indeed that nothing needs to happen with NOTICE. However, along the way in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-226 it emerged that the BSD/MIT licenses should be inlined into LICENSE (or copied in the distro somewhere). I can get on that -- just some grunt work to copy and paste it all. On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Reynold Xin wrote: > Richard, > > Thanks for bringing this up and this is a great point. Let's start another > thread for it so we don't hijack the release thread. > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sean Owen wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Richard Hillegas >> wrote: >> > Under your guidance, I would be happy to help compile a NOTICE file >> > which >> > follows the pattern used by Derby and the JDK. This effort might proceed >> > in >> > parallel with vetting 1.5.1 and could be targeted at a later release >> > vehicle. I don't think that the ASF's exposure is greatly increased by >> > one >> > more release which follows the old pattern. >> >> I'd prefer to use the ASF's preferred pattern, no? That's what we've >> been trying to do and seems like we're even required to do so, not >> follow a different convention. There is some specific guidance there >> about what to add, and not add, to these files. Specifically, because >> the AL2 requires downstream projects to embed the contents of NOTICE, >> the guidance is to only include elements in NOTICE that must appear >> there. >> >> Put it this way -- what would you like to change specifically? (you >> can start another thread for that) >> >> >> My assessment (just looked before I saw Sean's email) is the same as >> >> his. The NOTICE file embeds other projects' licenses. >> > >> > This may be where our perspectives diverge. I did not find those >> > licenses >> > embedded in the NOTICE file. As I see it, the licenses are cited but not >> > included. >> >> Pretty sure that was meant to say that NOTICE embeds other projects' >> "notices", not licenses. And those notices can have all kinds of >> stuff, including licenses. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Yes, but the ASF's reading seems to be clear: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps "In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the source tree and a short note summarizing its licensing:" I'd be concerned if you get a different interpretation from the ASF. I suppose it's OK to ask the question again, but for the moment I don't see a reason to believe there's a problem. On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Richard Hillegas wrote: > Hi Sean, > > My reading would be that a separate copy of the BSD license, with copyright > years filled in, is required for each BSD-licensed dependency. Same for > MIT-licensed dependencies. Hopefully, we will receive some guidance on > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-226 > > Thanks, > -Rick > > > > Sean Owen wrote on 09/24/2015 12:40:12 PM: > >> From: Sean Owen >> To: Richard Hillegas/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS >> Cc: "dev@spark.apache.org" >> Date: 09/24/2015 12:40 PM > > >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s >> >> Yes, the issue of where 3rd-party license information goes is >> different, and varies by license. I think the BSD/MIT licenses are all >> already listed in LICENSE accordingly. Let me know if you spy an >> omission. >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Richard Hillegas >> wrote: >> > Thanks for that pointer, Sean. It may be that Derby is putting the >> > license >> > information in the wrong place, viz. in the NOTICE file. But the 3rd >> > party >> > license text may need to go somewhere else. See for instance the advice >> > a >> > little further up the page at >> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps >> > >> > Thanks, >> > -Rick >> > >> > Sean Owen wrote on 09/24/2015 12:07:01 PM: >> > >> >> From: Sean Owen >> >> To: Richard Hillegas/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS >> >> Cc: "dev@spark.apache.org" >> >> Date: 09/24/2015 12:08 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Have a look at >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice >> >> though, which makes a good point about limiting what goes into NOTICE >> >> to what is required. That's what makes me think we shouldn't do this. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Richard Hillegas >> >> wrote: >> >> > To answer Sean's question on the previous email thread, I would >> >> > propose >> >> > making changes like the following to the NOTICE file: >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Hi Sean, My reading would be that a separate copy of the BSD license, with copyright years filled in, is required for each BSD-licensed dependency. Same for MIT-licensed dependencies. Hopefully, we will receive some guidance on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-226 Thanks, -Rick Sean Owen wrote on 09/24/2015 12:40:12 PM: > From: Sean Owen > To: Richard Hillegas/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: "dev@spark.apache.org" > Date: 09/24/2015 12:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s > > Yes, the issue of where 3rd-party license information goes is > different, and varies by license. I think the BSD/MIT licenses are all > already listed in LICENSE accordingly. Let me know if you spy an > omission. > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Richard Hillegas wrote: > > Thanks for that pointer, Sean. It may be that Derby is putting the license > > information in the wrong place, viz. in the NOTICE file. But the 3rd party > > license text may need to go somewhere else. See for instance the advice a > > little further up the page at > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps > > > > Thanks, > > -Rick > > > > Sean Owen wrote on 09/24/2015 12:07:01 PM: > > > >> From: Sean Owen > >> To: Richard Hillegas/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS > >> Cc: "dev@spark.apache.org" > >> Date: 09/24/2015 12:08 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s > > > > > >> > >> Have a look at http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice > >> though, which makes a good point about limiting what goes into NOTICE > >> to what is required. That's what makes me think we shouldn't do this. > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Richard Hillegas > >> wrote: > >> > To answer Sean's question on the previous email thread, I would propose > >> > making changes like the following to the NOTICE file: > >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Yes, the issue of where 3rd-party license information goes is different, and varies by license. I think the BSD/MIT licenses are all already listed in LICENSE accordingly. Let me know if you spy an omission. On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Richard Hillegas wrote: > Thanks for that pointer, Sean. It may be that Derby is putting the license > information in the wrong place, viz. in the NOTICE file. But the 3rd party > license text may need to go somewhere else. See for instance the advice a > little further up the page at > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps > > Thanks, > -Rick > > Sean Owen wrote on 09/24/2015 12:07:01 PM: > >> From: Sean Owen >> To: Richard Hillegas/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS >> Cc: "dev@spark.apache.org" >> Date: 09/24/2015 12:08 PM >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s > > >> >> Have a look at http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice >> though, which makes a good point about limiting what goes into NOTICE >> to what is required. That's what makes me think we shouldn't do this. >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Richard Hillegas >> wrote: >> > To answer Sean's question on the previous email thread, I would propose >> > making changes like the following to the NOTICE file: >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Thanks for that pointer, Sean. It may be that Derby is putting the license information in the wrong place, viz. in the NOTICE file. But the 3rd party license text may need to go somewhere else. See for instance the advice a little further up the page at http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Thanks, -Rick Sean Owen wrote on 09/24/2015 12:07:01 PM: > From: Sean Owen > To: Richard Hillegas/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: "dev@spark.apache.org" > Date: 09/24/2015 12:08 PM > Subject: Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s > > Have a look at http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice > though, which makes a good point about limiting what goes into NOTICE > to what is required. That's what makes me think we shouldn't do this. > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Richard Hillegas wrote: > > To answer Sean's question on the previous email thread, I would propose > > making changes like the following to the NOTICE file: >
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Have a look at http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice though, which makes a good point about limiting what goes into NOTICE to what is required. That's what makes me think we shouldn't do this. On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Richard Hillegas wrote: > To answer Sean's question on the previous email thread, I would propose > making changes like the following to the NOTICE file: - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Thanks for forking the new email thread, Reynold. It is entirely possible that I am being overly skittish. I have posed a question for our legal experts: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-226 To answer Sean's question on the previous email thread, I would propose making changes like the following to the NOTICE file: Replace a stanza like this... "This product contains a modified version of 'JZlib', a re-implementation of zlib in pure Java, which can be obtained at: * LICENSE: * license/LICENSE.jzlib.txt (BSD Style License) * HOMEPAGE: * http://www.jcraft.com/jzlib/"; ...with full license text like this "This product contains a modified version of 'JZlib', a re-implementation of zlib in pure Java, which can be obtained at: * HOMEPAGE: * http://www.jcraft.com/jzlib/ The ZLIB license text follows: JZlib 0.0.* were released under the GNU LGPL license. Later, we have switched over to a BSD-style license. -- Copyright (c) 2000-2011 ymnk, JCraft,Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The names of the authors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL JCRAFT, INC. OR ANY CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE." Thanks, -Rick Reynold Xin wrote on 09/24/2015 10:55:53 AM: > From: Reynold Xin > To: Sean Owen > Cc: Richard Hillegas/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS, "dev@spark.apache.org" > > Date: 09/24/2015 10:56 AM > Subject: [Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s > > Richard, > > Thanks for bringing this up and this is a great point. Let's start > another thread for it so we don't hijack the release thread. > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Richard Hillegas wrote: > > Under your guidance, I would be happy to help compile a NOTICE file which > > follows the pattern used by Derby and the JDK. This effort might proceed in > > parallel with vetting 1.5.1 and could be targeted at a later release > > vehicle. I don't think that the ASF's exposure is greatly increased by one > > more release which follows the old pattern. > > I'd prefer to use the ASF's preferred pattern, no? That's what we've > been trying to do and seems like we're even required to do so, not > follow a different convention. There is some specific guidance there > about what to add, and not add, to these files. Specifically, because > the AL2 requires downstream projects to embed the contents of NOTICE, > the guidance is to only include elements in NOTICE that must appear > there. > > Put it this way -- what would you like to change specifically? (you > can start another thread for that) > > >> My assessment (just looked before I saw Sean's email) is the same as > >> his. The NOTICE file embeds other projects' licenses. > > > > This may be where our perspectives diverge. I did not find those licenses > > embedded in the NOTICE file. As I see it, the licenses are cited but not > > included. > > Pretty sure that was meant to say that NOTICE embeds other projects' > "notices", not licenses. And those notices can have all kinds of > stuff, including licenses. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
[Discuss] NOTICE file for transitive "NOTICE"s
Richard, Thanks for bringing this up and this is a great point. Let's start another thread for it so we don't hijack the release thread. On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Richard Hillegas > wrote: > > Under your guidance, I would be happy to help compile a NOTICE file which > > follows the pattern used by Derby and the JDK. This effort might proceed > in > > parallel with vetting 1.5.1 and could be targeted at a later release > > vehicle. I don't think that the ASF's exposure is greatly increased by > one > > more release which follows the old pattern. > > I'd prefer to use the ASF's preferred pattern, no? That's what we've > been trying to do and seems like we're even required to do so, not > follow a different convention. There is some specific guidance there > about what to add, and not add, to these files. Specifically, because > the AL2 requires downstream projects to embed the contents of NOTICE, > the guidance is to only include elements in NOTICE that must appear > there. > > Put it this way -- what would you like to change specifically? (you > can start another thread for that) > > >> My assessment (just looked before I saw Sean's email) is the same as > >> his. The NOTICE file embeds other projects' licenses. > > > > This may be where our perspectives diverge. I did not find those licenses > > embedded in the NOTICE file. As I see it, the licenses are cited but not > > included. > > Pretty sure that was meant to say that NOTICE embeds other projects' > "notices", not licenses. And those notices can have all kinds of > stuff, including licenses. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >