Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix LICENSE/LICENSE.bin for release #495

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jbonofre
Copy link
Member

  • Upgrade to DropWizard 4.0.11
  • Upgrade to Hadoop 3.4.1
  • Fix LICENSE to be included in source distribution
  • Add LICENSE.bin targeted for binary distribution (will be added in another commit)
  • Exclude GPL dependencies

- Upgrade to Hadoop 3.4.1
- Fix LICENSE to be included in source distribution
- Add LICENSE.bin targeted for binary distribution (will be added in another commit)
- Exclude GPL dependencies
@@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ dependencies {
exclude("ch.qos.reload4j", "reload4j")
exclude("log4j", "log4j")
exclude("org.apache.zookeeper", "zookeeper")
exclude("org.apache.hadoop.thirdparty", "hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_25")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hadoop's an Apache project, why these excludes?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I excluded because it's not actually used in Polaris.

Comment on lines 4200 to 208
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't this included in the sentence above? gradlew is AL2 - and gradle-wrapper.properties is actually "ours".

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

GH placed the comment wrong - it's for the "Gradle sentence" at the top

@@ -18,9 +18,9 @@
#

[versions]
hadoop = "3.4.0"
hadoop = "3.4.1"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we do the version bumps in a separate PR?

Should actually be done by renovate ;)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, I can do in a separate PR. The reason why I included here it's because the transitive dependencies changed a bit.

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ class LicenseFileValidation : DependencyFilter {
override fun filter(data: ProjectData?): ProjectData {
data!!

val rootLicenseFile = data.project.rootProject.file("LICENSE").readText()
val rootLicenseFile = data.project.rootProject.file("LICENSE.bin").readText()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

.bin implies it's a binary file - maybe DEPENDENCY-LICENSES.txt or just DEPENDENCY-LICENSES?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's correct: LICENSE.bin is targeted to be included in binary distributions (like polaris-service tar/zip).
No problem to rename as LICENSE-BINARY-DEPENDENCY for instance.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Then let's rename LICENSE.bin to DEPENDENCY-LICENSE, because .bin usually means "this" is a binary file.

Copy link
Contributor

@flyrain flyrain Dec 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This PR creates a new license file. Do we need two license files? I think the one including the dependencies license is good enough.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes we need two because we have a source distribution and a binary distribution.

If we don't distribute the binary distribution then only LICENSE would be enough. But as we have the polaris-service tar, to distribute it, we need the license for binaries included in this distribution.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For binary distribution, do we need to aggregate all third-party licenses into a text file, as the third party jar files have them already?

Comment on lines +4654 to +4678
org.slf4j:jul-to-slf4j
org.slf4j:slf4j-api

Copyright (c) 2004-2022 QOS.ch Sarl (Switzerland)
All rights reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we distributed the third party jar file(e.g., org.slf4j:slf4j-api)? If yes, then we don't have to copy the license in Polaris. The jar has the license.
Screenshot 2024-12-03 at 9 53 54 AM

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if we have to include the third party license, can we use the link to save the space like what Iceberg does?

This product includes code from Apache Hive.

* Hive metastore derby schema in hive-schema-3.1.0.derby.sql

Copyright: 2011-2018 The Apache Software Foundation
Home page: https://hive.apache.org/
License: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/feed4e2544b5839fbc2fe040965af3906d053302/LICENSE#L273-L273

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We ship slf4j in the binary distribution. No need to include the License only copy the notice content (according to alv2 4d section).

Iceberg is different as it's only source distribution (not binary). So it mentions only the source code coming from other projects.

Just to be clear: I'm pretty sure of my changes here (especially for the source distribution). To license and notice of the binary distribution are generated by the gradle plugin.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we distributed the third party jar file(e.g., org.slf4j:slf4j-api)? If yes, then we don't have to copy the license in Polaris. The jar has the license.

Screenshot 2024-12-03 at 9 53 54 AM

That doesn't matter: the notice would have been important but slf4j doesn't have notice

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants