[#2307] license: Add left jars with Apache license

[roryqi]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Add left jars with Apache license

Why are the changes needed?

Fix #2307

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

No need.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 52.35%. Comparing base (44bfd0d) to head (9807049).
Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #2310      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     52.27%   52.35%   +0.08%     
+ Complexity     3569     3363     -206     
============================================
  Files           543      513      -30     
  Lines         29797    27585    -2212     
  Branches       2779     2593     -186     
============================================
- Hits          15575    14443    -1132     
+ Misses        13227    12203    -1024     
+ Partials        995      939      -56     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[kaijchen]

LGTM

[pjfanning]

I don't think org.javassist:javassist is Apache licensed.

https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javassist/javassist says it is LGPL and MPL licensed. LGPL is a problem but MPL is Category B and is ok. So we can use the jar.

[pjfanning]

I don't think org.javassist:javassist is Apache licensed.

https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javassist/javassist says it is LGPL and MPL licensed. LGPL is a problem but MPL is Category B and is ok. So we can use the jar.

It actually looks like org.javassist:javassist is licensed under 3 licenses (the 2 above and Apache license too which is better).

https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/javassist/javassist/3.30.2-GA/javassist-3.30.2-GA.pom

Could we update the LICENSE-binary to name the 3 licenses instead of grouping it under Apache license alone?

[github-actions]

Test Results

 2 966 files  ±0   2 966 suites  ±0   6h 27m 31s ⏱️ +5s
 1 097 tests ±0   1 095 ✅ ±0   2 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
13 750 runs  ±0  13 720 ✅ ±0  30 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit b5592ad. ± Comparison against base commit 1c56e74.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[roryqi]

I don't think org.javassist:javassist is Apache licensed.
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javassist/javassist says it is LGPL and MPL licensed. LGPL is a problem but MPL is Category B and is ok. So we can use the jar.

It actually looks like org.javassist:javassist is licensed under 3 licenses (the 2 above and Apache license too which is better).

https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/javassist/javassist/3.30.2-GA/javassist-3.30.2-GA.pom

Could we update the LICENSE-binary to name the 3 licenses instead of grouping it under Apache license alone?

OK.

[roryqi]

LGPL

Added.

[roryqi]

@pjfanning Do you have any other suggestion?

[pjfanning]

@pjfanning Do you have any other suggestion?

seems ok to me

[justinmclean]

When something is available under multiple licenses, you should select the license that is compatable with the ASF license/policy. See https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#mutually-exclusive