incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Lipcon <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Date Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:01:16 GMT
Hi Justin,

Thanks for voting (and for your +1 despite there being some questions).
Responses inline:

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Justin Mclean <> wrote:

> Hi,
> +1 binding
> I checked:
> - signatures and hashes fine
> - name contains incubating
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE and NOTICE good
> - No unexpected binaries
> - Source file have apache headers (some have extra ones)
> - Can compile on OS X (but it takes a while)
> I still think there’s a couple of minor issues with license.
> - For instance the added text "The following dependencies or pieces of
> incorporated source code have licenses such that either:...” is IMO
> incorrect. For instance BSD requires license to be both in source and
> binary distributions.

Right, that's true that the BSD license does require that (and that's why
most of the other licenses above in the file are for BSD source). The
specific cases of BSD-licensed software here is FindProtobuf.cmake, which
is a build-time-only dependency and does not become part of the binary
distribution. I should add a note to clarify that.

> - It’s unclear why the 1/2 dozen non Apache license software listed under
> this text are treated in a different way to the other bundled
> software.Wouldn’t it  be better to be consistent and handle all licenses
> the same way?

Yes, that's what I thought, but in your previous vote, I understood that
you and others preferred the LICENSE.txt file to be "minimal" and include
"pointers" in cases where the license didn't _require_ the full text to be
reproduced. I'm happy to revert the change we made for this release and go
back to what we did in the previous one, but I thought this was what was

> - This file [1] isn’t BSD as noted in the license but a modified zlib,
> notice the clauses about modifications
> The license file says "half BSD, half zlib". The file self-describes as a
"BSD-style license":

But as you noted, it has some zlib-like clauses. So I think "half BSD half
zlib" is relatively accurate, no?

There also looks to be some minor issues with Apache headers in several
> files
> Several files have double Apache headers. For instance in src/kudu/util:
> bit-stream-utils.h, bit-stream-utils.inline.h,,
> bit-util.h, logging.cclogging.h, rle-encoding.h,,
>, url-coding.h

Thanks. I think these were files that we borrowed from Apache Impala
(incubating) at some point when it already had the license header, and our
scripting which prepended the header got them wrong. Will fix.

> It also may be that Apache headers have been added to files that shouldn’t
> have them? For  Instance [2] is stated as BSD in the license file but has
> an Apache header. Was the original header removed? Also [3] has an Apache
> header but notes it's BSD licensed. These are not the only examples.

Aha, I see what happened with random-util.{cc,h}. In fact these files were
authored as part of Kudu, and _not_ BSD licensed. The mention of them in
LICENSE.txt is a hold-over from an earlier revision which contained some a
single function from WebRTC. That code was later refactored into random.h
as Random::Normal(...). We should just update the LICENSE.txt file to say
that random.h contains the BSD-licensed code and not

I'll try to take a swing through for any other double-licensed stuff I can


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message