Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-28 Thread Joe Witt
Yes my wording for #2 was confusing. Yes for all things bundled in a given nar its license and notice should cover all things in that nar and further the assembly L should cover it too. That is for binary dependencies. If we have source dependencies/inclusions which we take as-is or modify then

Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-28 Thread Tony Kurc
Joe et al., I was helping Mike out of band on this and think we got a bit confused, mainly I think because of the current nifi-assembly NOTICE and seemingly including things that I think you said shouldn't be (per your 2nd point). Also, some of the phrasing you used was a little bit confusing and

Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-28 Thread Michael Hogue
Joe, Thanks much for the detailed response. That's really helpful in determining what i should and shouldn't do w.r.t LICENSEs and NOTICEs. I'll capture this in the contributor guide as well. Thanks again, Mike On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:44 PM Mike Hogue wrote: > Not a

Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-28 Thread Mike Hogue
Not a problem, assuming i'm able to edit the contributor's guide. On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:43 PM Tony Kurc wrote: > Mike, > while it is fresh in your head, any chance you have cycles to synthesize > this and put this up on the contributor's guide? > > Tony > > On Wed, Jun 28,

Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-28 Thread Tony Kurc
Mike, while it is fresh in your head, any chance you have cycles to synthesize this and put this up on the contributor's guide? Tony On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Michael, > > Thanks for being so diligent on the L considerations. > > For the binary

Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-28 Thread Joe Witt
Michael, Thanks for being so diligent on the L considerations. For the binary dependencies you're listing here I'd take the following approach: 1) For google rpc dependency that is a new version but appears to be the same LICENSE text I'd simply update this line [1] to say The binary

Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-27 Thread Tony Kurc
For reference: Netty 4.1 NOTICE https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/4.1/NOTICE.txt Netty 3.7 NOTICE https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/3.7/NOTICE.txt On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Tony Kurc wrote: > Background, I asked Mike how he put together the LICENSE, and why he

Re: NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-27 Thread Tony Kurc
Background, I asked Mike how he put together the LICENSE, and why he added a separate section in the LICENSE for Google Protocol Buffers 3.3.1, and his answer that made sense was "well, what existed there was there had a version (2.5.0)". Interesting note, the Google Protocol Buffers LICENSE

NiFi Assembly NOTICE/LICENSE Maintenance

2017-06-27 Thread Michael Hogue
Hello all, I'm attempting to merge a LICENSE and NOTICE i've created for a new grpc processor bundle [1,2] into the NiFi assembly. I've run into a couple of things i don't know how to resolve: 1. If I add a new (transitive) dependency with a newer version than exists elsewhere in the code