Please clarify copyright holder

[jas4711]

Describe the enhancement requested

Hi. Who is the copyright holder of the files in this project? There are no copyright statements in the code, so this is a bit unclear. I can guess that it is the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) but guessing when it comes to licensing issues is rarely a good idea. Debian has strict policies on licensing, so if you could add a short paragraph to README to explain things, that would be best.

Also the LICENSE files includes below the typical Apache 2.0 license, the following blurb:

This project includes code from the Go project, BSD 3-clause license + PATENTS
weak patent termination clause
(https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/PATENTS).

Copyright (c) 2009 The Go Authors. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

   * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
   * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
   * Neither the name of Google Inc. nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Which files contain code derived from this license? I wonder if this is really the case any more.

Thanks,
Simon

Component(s)

Documentation

[zeroshade]

@jas4711 All source files contain the ASF license at the top describing that the current license holder for all code in this repository is the Apache Software Foundation (this is enforced via CI).

Which files contain code derived from this license? I wonder if this is really the case any more.

There are some low-level utilities and helper functions that were originally pulled/duplicated from or inspired by code found in the standard libraries of Go such as https://github.com/apache/arrow-go/blob/main/arrow/flight/cookie_middleware.go#L33

For the most part, it's not necessarily clear whether or not these qualify as requiring the license to be propagated but it's better safe than otherwise. In addition, any binaries that are built and distributed from this code using the go toolchain would of course include the Go runtime statically linked in, etc. In addition to the fact that standard library code is imported via standard package handling (which probably isn't enough to warrant this blurb on its own).

[zeroshade]

@kou @jbonofre @assignUser would any of you be able to take a look and confirm my logic above / whether or not there's any clarifications necessary to be changed from just including the license on all of the source files?

[jbonofre]

@kou @jbonofre @assignUser would any of you be able to take a look and confirm my logic above / whether or not there's any clarifications necessary to be changed from just including the license on all of the source files?

Sure. I will take a look. Thanks !

[kou]

I think that we need to mention all https://github.com/apache/arrow-go/blob/main/arrow/flight/cookie_middleware.go#L33 like files (files that include copied codes) in LICENSE.txt explicitly.
For example, we did it in apache/arrow-java: https://github.com/apache/arrow-java/blob/a5b86049261530d41fbbdd23324420f0c1d14431/LICENSE.txt#L204-L222

For binary artifacts, we don't need to mention dependencies in LICENSE.txt. Because we don't release binary artifacts for apache/arrow-go.

[jas4711]

We got feedback about one file that I had missed myself. The following is CC-Zero-1.0 licensed and your copy contains a one-line comment addition that I could not find in the upstream code. Anyone who want to construct an accurate copyright meta-information file for this package may want to mention this file specially, and it would be nice to have a reference about it in your LICENSE file too.

https://github.com/apache/arrow-go/blob/main/arrow/compute/internal/kernels/_lib/vendored/safe-math.h

https://github.com/nemequ/portable-snippets/blob/master/safe-math/safe-math.h

[assignUser]

Vendored files/projects should be mentioned in a NOTICE file as describe in 4. of the ASL 2.0, for any ASL licensed ones the contents of their notice file also has to be added to the arrow-go notice file. See the monorepo NOTICE.txt as an example

[jbonofre]

See https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep for ref.

[jbonofre]

So, about the original @jas4711 question.

It seems @jas4711 is talking about BSD dependency (either code copy or binary bundle). So, we are here https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps

Only LICENSE should be updated to contain a pointer to the dependency.
The LICENSE has to contain:

1. The lists file coming from this dependency
2. A copy of the original LICENSE (BSD)

Nothing should be added to NOTICE.

[jbonofre]

@jas4711 about safe-math.h:

1. It should be listed in LICENSE (code copied from ...), including the pointer to the "LICENSE" (CC-Zero)
2. No need to update NOTICE

[assignUser]

Ah what a great resource, thanks @jbonofre !

[jbonofre]

Ah what a great resource, thanks @jbonofre !

My pleasure, I thought it could be helpful 😄

[zeroshade]

I'll double check, but I think we aren't actually using the vendored safe-math dependency anymore. If that's the case I'll just delete it rather than update the LICENSE.

I'll see if I can find any other spots that we have copied code that need to be listed.

[jbonofre]

I'll double check, but I think we aren't actually using the vendored safe-math dependency anymore. If that's the case I'll just delete it rather than update the LICENSE.

I'll see if I can find any other spots that we have copied code that need to be listed.

@zeroshade it sounds like a good plan for safe-math. Thanks !