Hi Alex,
We have been working on the legal review for the BCR official launch, it's the last blocker for us.
However, it turned out it is impractical for us (the Google Bazel team) to host the source archive mirror. Because mirroring the source archives is considered as publishing source code by Google, the OSPO team and the legal team require us to go through the internal releasing process for each new module to make sure only modules with
acceptable licenses are checked in. This process just won't scale for the BCR.
In the end, we think the only acceptable solution is to ask the Bazel community to host the default mirror for the BCR. I'm confirming with the Google security team if this is fine security-wise. (I guess so, since all downloaded source archives are verified by the SHA hash).
In the meantime, I wonder what's your opinion on this? Do you think the rules authors SIG can help setting up the source archive mirror?
Potentially problems to solve:
- Will you have the same legal concerns? If so, maybe you can implement some simpler and automated process to check the licenses?
- Implement the same mirroring process in bcr_postsubmit, this should be doable with Github Action (similar to the Web UI hook).
I can also think of at least one benefit of this approach, the community can get the download statistics more easily as we (the Bazel team) have to go through some internal process to get access to the log of the GCS bucket and think about how to make this data available.
Cheers,
Yun