Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. I _believe_ the NOTICE file is where you are supposed to put NOTICES from licenses that require it. (someone else here can probably help) Beyond that, and I'm not sure if it is a blocker or not, things look good to the extent I tested (packaging, keys, basic run through) So, -1 if the NOTICE thing is a thing that needs to be dealt with now. +1 if it is not. In either case, that would be binding. -Grant On Oct 5, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Steven Phillips s...@apache.org wrote: I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have passed our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over 30 JIRAs closed in the last month. The vote thread can be found here:http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201410.mbox/%3CCAA_-67fAJFB20wGX462wm7BYvoSy3PvydCPgY9uNSEj3HpQRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E The vote passed with: +9 binding +3 non-binding You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/ I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Steven
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
I had a look, since I was just dealing with NOTICE for another project. The key is whether copies of the third-party libraries are distributed. In the case of Drill, yes there are loads of 3rd party jars distributed in jars/; they are not just Maven deps referenced in pom.xml. I am sure this will entail some entries in NOTICE just from looking at the deps, which aren't there. See for example http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html Functionally it's trivial; from a license / legal perspective, it's one of the only things that matter, and ultimately it's vital to dot all those i's and cross those t's. It's tedious to construct the right NOTICE file since it will entail figuring out what third party deps are built in to things like hive-exec too. I have a few tips for whatever brave soul wants to take on that task. Some Maven plugins can do most of the legwork. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. I _believe_ the NOTICE file is where you are supposed to put NOTICES from licenses that require it. (someone else here can probably help) Beyond that, and I'm not sure if it is a blocker or not, things look good to the extent I tested (packaging, keys, basic run through) So, -1 if the NOTICE thing is a thing that needs to be dealt with now. +1 if it is not. In either case, that would be binding. -Grant On Oct 5, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Steven Phillips s...@apache.org wrote: I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have passed our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over 30 JIRAs closed in the last month. The vote thread can be found here:http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201410.mbox/%3CCAA_-67fAJFB20wGX462wm7BYvoSy3PvydCPgY9uNSEj3HpQRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E The vote passed with: +9 binding +3 non-binding You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/ I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Steven - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. I _believe_ the NOTICE file is where you are supposed to put NOTICES from licenses that require it. (someone else here can probably help) In the interval since Solr graduated from the Incubator, what constitutes a required notice has been clarified. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62, especially the comments at http://s.apache.org/XAf and http://s.apache.org/jP. The original rationale for separating NOTICE out in the transition from the Apache License 1.1 to the Apache License 2.0 was to move the following clause: * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, *if any, must include the following acknowledgment: * This product includes software developed by the *Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). *Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, *if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. The presence of that requirement in a license conflicts with the GPL. But as Roy notes, the GPL requires the preservation of notices even when it subsumes all other licenses -- so the kludge of moving it to NOTICE works around the GPL incompatibility. Were the Incubator to review Solr's licensing documentation today, I'm certain that the project would be encouraged to pare things down -- to lower the cost to downstream consumers, and in keeping with the modest original intent of NOTICE. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
Is it correct, then, to say that if Drill does not bundle any GPL licensed libraries, we do not need any additional info in the NOTICE? On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. I _believe_ the NOTICE file is where you are supposed to put NOTICES from licenses that require it. (someone else here can probably help) In the interval since Solr graduated from the Incubator, what constitutes a required notice has been clarified. See LEGAL-59 and LEGAL-62, especially the comments at http://s.apache.org/XAf and http://s.apache.org/jP. The original rationale for separating NOTICE out in the transition from the Apache License 1.1 to the Apache License 2.0 was to move the following clause: * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, *if any, must include the following acknowledgment: * This product includes software developed by the *Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). *Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, *if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. The presence of that requirement in a license conflicts with the GPL. But as Roy notes, the GPL requires the preservation of notices even when it subsumes all other licenses -- so the kludge of moving it to NOTICE works around the GPL incompatibility. Were the Incubator to review Solr's licensing documentation today, I'm certain that the project would be encouraged to pare things down -- to lower the cost to downstream consumers, and in keeping with the modest original intent of NOTICE. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Steven Phillips Software Engineer mapr.com
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)
OK, let me clarify as sebb has asked so that the vote can proceed. The git commit to be voted upon: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-optiq/commit/6801257324d7515f91c61877a0edd0863c0433f5 Its hash is 6801257324d7515f91c61877a0edd0863c0433f5. The artifacts to be voted on are located here: http://people.apache.org/~jhyde/apache-calcite-0.9.1-incubating-rc1/ The hashes of the artifacts are as follows: src.tar.gz.md5 f7c1a0fa488e061f6812bb0014561738 src.tar.gz.sha1 bf3fc81fb911a33be9e6d9afb0e5d2b34a25fb4c src.zip.md5 e0326c9463075df3c6f8f9a1324f9512 src.zip.sha1 5943eed6532b3c6edeb208a605a1f5ee6532a0c2 A staged Maven repository is available for review at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecalcite-1000 Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/optiq/KEYS (Note that the directory still bears the old project name, pending https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8418.) Julian
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)
On 10 October 2014 18:59, Julian Hyde jh...@apache.org wrote: OK, let me clarify as sebb has asked so that the vote can proceed. Thanks very much, the new text is very good. The git commit to be voted upon: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-optiq/commit/6801257324d7515f91c61877a0edd0863c0433f5 Its hash is 6801257324d7515f91c61877a0edd0863c0433f5. The artifacts to be voted on are located here: http://people.apache.org/~jhyde/apache-calcite-0.9.1-incubating-rc1/ The hashes of the artifacts are as follows: src.tar.gz.md5 f7c1a0fa488e061f6812bb0014561738 src.tar.gz.sha1 bf3fc81fb911a33be9e6d9afb0e5d2b34a25fb4c src.zip.md5 e0326c9463075df3c6f8f9a1324f9512 src.zip.sha1 5943eed6532b3c6edeb208a605a1f5ee6532a0c2 A staged Maven repository is available for review at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecalcite-1000 Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/optiq/KEYS (Note that the directory still bears the old project name, pending https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8418.) Julian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
The standard practice has been drifting in incubator-land. When I brought this up previously, I was told a few things, 1) the notices required by BSD like licenses apparently should appear in the LICENSE file. 2) notices in the source distribution only need to include things that are included in the source distro 3) notices in the binary distribution should include the things included in the binary distro (clearly many more than in the source distro) 4) maven references from a pom do not invoke a requirement for notices in the source distro. So, If you are talking about the source distribution, this isn't a problem. If you are talking about notices that actually are in the LICENSE file instead of the NOTICE file, this isn't a problem. If you are saying that the notices aren't in the LICENSE file in the binary distro, there is a huge problem (partly because I looked there and found them). My guess is that your next comment and mine as well is that it is really hard to keep track of these requirements as they shift over time. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. I _believe_ the NOTICE file is where you are supposed to put NOTICES from licenses that require it. (someone else here can probably help) Beyond that, and I'm not sure if it is a blocker or not, things look good to the extent I tested (packaging, keys, basic run through) So, -1 if the NOTICE thing is a thing that needs to be dealt with now. +1 if it is not. In either case, that would be binding. -Grant On Oct 5, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Steven Phillips s...@apache.org wrote: I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have passed our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over 30 JIRAs closed in the last month. The vote thread can be found here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201410.mbox/%3CCAA_-67fAJFB20wGX462wm7BYvoSy3PvydCPgY9uNSEj3HpQRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E The vote passed with: +9 binding +3 non-binding You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/ I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Steven
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
Sean, Are you talking about the src distribution after doing the build? Before doing the build or after [mvn clean], there are no jars in the distribution. Videlicet: *ted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$ mvn -q cleanted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$ find . -name '*.jar'ted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$* On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote: I had a look, since I was just dealing with NOTICE for another project. The key is whether copies of the third-party libraries are distributed. In the case of Drill, yes there are loads of 3rd party jars distributed in jars/; they are not just Maven deps referenced in pom.xml. I am sure this will entail some entries in NOTICE just from looking at the deps, which aren't there. See for example http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html Functionally it's trivial; from a license / legal perspective, it's one of the only things that matter, and ultimately it's vital to dot all those i's and cross those t's. It's tedious to construct the right NOTICE file since it will entail figuring out what third party deps are built in to things like hive-exec too. I have a few tips for whatever brave soul wants to take on that task. Some Maven plugins can do most of the legwork. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. I _believe_ the NOTICE file is where you are supposed to put NOTICES from licenses that require it. (someone else here can probably help) Beyond that, and I'm not sure if it is a blocker or not, things look good to the extent I tested (packaging, keys, basic run through) So, -1 if the NOTICE thing is a thing that needs to be dealt with now. +1 if it is not. In either case, that would be binding. -Grant On Oct 5, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Steven Phillips s...@apache.org wrote: I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have passed our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over 30 JIRAs closed in the last month. The vote thread can be found here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201410.mbox/%3CCAA_-67fAJFB20wGX462wm7BYvoSy3PvydCPgY9uNSEj3HpQRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E The vote passed with: +9 binding +3 non-binding You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/ I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Steven - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
No I just went straight for the binary distribution: http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating.tar.gz This contains the third-party jar files in jars/. I assume http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html is still the law of the land so to speak and indicates that lots of these things need to be in NOTICE. On Oct 10, 2014 9:24 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Sean, Are you talking about the src distribution after doing the build? Before doing the build or after [mvn clean], there are no jars in the distribution. Videlicet: - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: The standard practice has been drifting in incubator-land. There's hardly any daylight between what Roy was recommending 8 years ago and what we recommend today. (NOTICE should be minimal, only bundled bits get documented in LICENSE and NOTICE, etc.) It's true that podlings have gotten inconsistent advice in the past, but we're doing better these days. My guess is that your next comment and mine as well is that it is really hard to keep track of these requirements as they shift over time. Yeah, I feel this frustration. It took way too much effort before I felt a sense of mastery over this subject. The addition of the Licensing How-To seems to have helped. Presumably the completion of the release policy clarification initiative will improve matters further. (Gah, I have no time...) Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
