incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Owen <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
Date Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:32:36 GMT
I am reading . Yes
LICENSE also needs to contain more things as well. Yes, there are
several situations where NOTICE does not need to change, but this is
the key sentence:

"Aside from Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of
their own, it is uncommon for a dependency to require additions to

Lots of the dependencies I see here are Apache-licensed dependencies
with NOTICE files. The Apache License 2 clause 4 means any (relevant)
parts of the NOTICE files must be included in a distribution, and the
NOTICE file is the place for that*.

Here's a correct (AFAIK) example from Spark:

Some of the same dependencies are included in both.

I don't see why this doesn't apply to Drill too? Unless the guidance
above is out of date.

* I am not clear whether distribution a .jar, which has its NOTICE
file embedded, "counts". This would not be the case in an 'uber' jar
the the project distributes, and there are some third-party uber jars
here like hive-exec, but I don't see a Drill uber jar. Maybe that
counts; maybe it's safer just to populate NOTICE appropriately. Or,
avoid shipping copies of all these jars directly?

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ted Dunning <> wrote:
> Actually, the licensing howto says things like this:
> In LICENSE, add a pointer <> to the dependency's
> license within the source tree and a short note summarizing its licensing:
> This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
> "3-clause BSD" license.  For details, see deps/superwidget/.
> Under normal circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE.
> Over and over again, it is emphasized that NOTICE does not need to be
> modified and that the reference should be in the LICENSE file.
> This seems to contradict your assertion that these references need to be in
> the NOTICE file.
> Are you sure we are reading the same document?
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Sean Owen <> wrote:
>> No I just went straight for the binary distribution:
>> This contains the third-party jar files in jars/.
>> I assume 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" <> 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:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message