Uploaded image for project: 'Bigtop'
  1. Bigtop
  2. BIGTOP-1306

RPM licensing metadata is inconsistent and wrong

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 0.7.0
    • Fix Version/s: 0.8.0
    • Component/s: rpm
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      We're being pretty inconsistent with how we say "ASL 2.0" on the RPM side of things, and in the case of Phoenix we should actually be saying "BSD with advertizing".

        Activity

        Hide
        mackrorysd Sean Mackrory added a comment -

        I went with Fedora's "short names" as specified here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main

        Show
        mackrorysd Sean Mackrory added a comment - I went with Fedora's "short names" as specified here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
        Hide
        mgrover Mark Grover added a comment -

        +1

        Show
        mgrover Mark Grover added a comment - +1
        Hide
        rvs Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        +1 in general, but I'm mightily confused on Phoenix: it has just graduated as a TLP. Are you saying its not AL? That would be weird.

        Show
        rvs Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - +1 in general, but I'm mightily confused on Phoenix: it has just graduated as a TLP. Are you saying its not AL? That would be weird.
        Hide
        mackrorysd Sean Mackrory added a comment - - edited

        I wasn't aware of Phoenix's progress within the ASF, however the release of Phoenix that Bigtop is currently programmed to use is most definitely BSD-licensed: https://github.com/forcedotcom/phoenix/blob/2.0.2/license.txt. I would suggest the correct course of action is to go with the BSD-3 license right now, and then update the license and update to an Apache release of Phoenix at the same time.

        Show
        mackrorysd Sean Mackrory added a comment - - edited I wasn't aware of Phoenix's progress within the ASF, however the release of Phoenix that Bigtop is currently programmed to use is most definitely BSD-licensed: https://github.com/forcedotcom/phoenix/blob/2.0.2/license.txt . I would suggest the correct course of action is to go with the BSD-3 license right now, and then update the license and update to an Apache release of Phoenix at the same time.
        Hide
        rvs Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        I am actually pretty paranoid about this type of thing. To a point where I'd possibly suggest moving to the latest release of Phoenix that is clearly under AL. Andrew Purtell any thoughts on what exact version to move to?

        Show
        rvs Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - I am actually pretty paranoid about this type of thing. To a point where I'd possibly suggest moving to the latest release of Phoenix that is clearly under AL. Andrew Purtell any thoughts on what exact version to move to?
        Hide
        apurtell Andrew Purtell added a comment -

        We're using HBase 0.98 in 0.8. The Phoenix version required for that is 4.0.0, which was released under ASL 2 during incubation.

        Show
        apurtell Andrew Purtell added a comment - We're using HBase 0.98 in 0.8. The Phoenix version required for that is 4.0.0, which was released under ASL 2 during incubation.
        Hide
        mackrorysd Sean Mackrory added a comment -

        I am actually pretty paranoid about this type of thing.

        As am I, but that's precisely why I'd like to at least have correct licensing information immediately I'm a strong +1 to upgrading Phoenix as well, but we're not 100% ready to that right this very minute.

        Show
        mackrorysd Sean Mackrory added a comment - I am actually pretty paranoid about this type of thing. As am I, but that's precisely why I'd like to at least have correct licensing information immediately I'm a strong +1 to upgrading Phoenix as well, but we're not 100% ready to that right this very minute.
        Hide
        cos Konstantin Boudnik added a comment -

        The fix was committed back on 5/13/2014 but the ticket was never updated accordingly.

        Show
        cos Konstantin Boudnik added a comment - The fix was committed back on 5/13/2014 but the ticket was never updated accordingly.

          People

          • Assignee:
            mackrorysd Sean Mackrory
            Reporter:
            mackrorysd Sean Mackrory
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            5 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development