incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) Release
Date Tue, 09 Aug 2016 23:59:26 GMT
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Mike Jumper <> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
>>> source code.
>> That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or CDDL
licensed software?
>>> That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG  licensed header there
on my own.
>> Nor should you if the files are not licensed that way.
>>> I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW that they
>>> are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license.
>> The package as a whole is licensed that way. But you stated you didn’t not know
how that file is licensed it may be ALv2 or it may be something else. Just as it has different
copyright owner it also likely is under a different license, whose terms are very likely to
be APv2 compatible, but may not be.
> I'd also like to point out, from the PostgreSQL license (emphasis added):
> "... Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
> its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written
> agreement is hereby granted, **provided that the above copyright
> notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in
> all copies**. ..."
> Regardless of how uncomfortable it may be to modify that file and add
> legal boilerplate, the project in question would be violating the
> PostgreSQL license if it does not somehow include the copyright notice
> and paragraphs along with the copied portions.
> If it is absolutely known that the file is indeed under the PostgreSQL
> license, I'd think the best thing would be to add it and thus comply.
> If, on the other hand, the license of that file truly *isn't* known,
> then its inclusion in any project is dangerous.

The way we're currently proposing to handle this is to add a section to
Apache HAWQ's (incubating) license file stating the text of the PG license
and listing (explicitly) all the files that are covered by it in our source code

Very similar to how, for example, a recently graduated project Kudu is
handling it:

If you feel that this is a problem... well then ASF has a much bigger
problem on its hands than a HAWQ release. I can name a lot of projects
that only do the attribution of unmodified 3d party licensing in the LICENSE
file and not at the level of individual file's headers.

> Perhaps the upstream project could be persuaded to add the appropriate
> boilerplate themselves, and thus resolve this once and for all?

That's highly unlikely.


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

View raw message