Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

The question is just whether the metadata and instructions involving these Maven packages counts as sufficient to tell the user that they have different licensing terms. For example, our Ganglia package was called spark-ganglia-lgpl (so you'd notice it's a different license even from its name),

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

To be clear, "safe" has very little to do with this. It's pretty clear that there's very little risk of the spark module for kinesis being considered a derivative work, much less all of spark. The use limitation in 3.3 that caused the amazon license to be put on the apache X list also doesn't

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > > It is good to get clarification, but the way I read it, the issue is > whether we publish it as official Apache artifacts (in maven, etc). > > Users can of course build it directly (and we can make it easy to do

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Matei Zaharia wrote: > I think you should ask legal about how to have some Maven artifacts for > these. Both Ganglia and Kinesis are very widely used, so it's weird to ask > users to build them from source. Maybe the Maven artifacts can

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

It is good to get clarification, but the way I read it, the issue is whether we publish it as official Apache artifacts (in maven, etc). Users can of course build it directly (and we can make it easy to do so) - as they are explicitly agreeing to additional licenses. Regards Mridul On

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

Agree, I've asked the question on that thread and will follow it up. I'd prefer not to pull these unless it's fairly clear it's going to be against policy. On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Matei Zaharia wrote: > I think you should ask legal about how to have some Maven

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

I think you should ask legal about how to have some Maven artifacts for these. Both Ganglia and Kinesis are very widely used, so it's weird to ask users to build them from source. Maybe the Maven artifacts can be marked as being under a different license? In the initial discussion for

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

(Credit to Luciano for pointing it out) Yes it's clear why the assembly can't be published but I had the same question about the non-assembly Kinesis (and ganglia) artifact, because the published artifact has no code from Kinesis. See the related discussion at

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

I agree, we should not be publishing both of them. Thanks for bringing this up ! Regards, Mridul On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > It's worth calling attention to: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-17418 >

Re: Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

I don't see a reason to remove the non-assembly artifact, why would you? You're not distributing copies of Amazon licensed code, and the Amazon license goes out of its way not to over-reach regarding derivative works. This seems pretty clearly to fall in the spirit of

Removing published kinesis, ganglia artifacts due to license issues?

It's worth calling attention to: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-17418 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-17422 It looks like we need to at least not publish the kinesis *assembly* Maven artifact because it contains Amazon Software Licensed-code directly. However there's a