Change:
github.com/robfig/cron v1.1.0/go.mod h1:JGuDeoQd7Z6yL4zQhZ3OPEVHB7fL6Ka6skscFHfmt2k= github.com/rogpeppe/fastuuid v0.0.0-20150106093220-6724a57986af/go.mod h1:XWv6SoW27p1b0cqNHllgS5HIMJraePCO15w5zCzIWYg= github.com/rogpeppe/go-internal v1.3.0/go.mod h1:M8bDsm7K2OlrFYOpmOWEs/qY81heoFRclV5y23lUDJ4= <del> github.com/rubiojr/go-vhd v0.0.0-20160810183302-0bfd3b39853c h1:ht7N4d/B7Ezf58nvMNVF3OlvDlz9pp+WHVcRNS0nink= github.com/rubiojr/go-vhd v0.0.0-20160810183302-0bfd3b39853c/go.mod h1:DM5xW0nvfNNm2uytzsvhI3OnX8uzaRAg8UX/CnDqbto= </del> <ins> github.com/rubiojr/go-vhd v0.0.0-20200706105327-02e210299021 h1:if3/24+h9Sq6eDx8UUz1SO9cT9tizyIsATfB7b4D3tc= github.com/rubiojr/go-vhd v0.0.0-20200706105327-02e210299021/go.mod h1:DM5xW0nvfNNm2uytzsvhI3OnX8uzaRAg8UX/CnDqbto= </ins> github.com/russross/blackfriday v1.5.2 h1:HyvC0ARfnZBqnXwABFeSZHpKvJHJJfPz81GNueLj0oo= github.com/russross/blackfriday v1.5.2/go.mod h1:JO/DiYxRf+HjHt06OyowR9PTA263kcR/rfWxYHBV53g= github.com/russross/blackfriday/v2 v2.0.1 h1:lPqVAte+HuHNfhJ/0LC98ESWRz8afy9tM/0RK8m9o+Q=

Discussion:
I ran an OSS license scan of a codebase that has this project as a dependency and came across an interesting hit. This go-vhd dependency specified here: has a snippet of code from StackOverflow which is license under creative commons sharealike. Here's the code in question: I'm not a license expert, so I don't know if there are any real issues/conflicts here or not, but wanted to share to see what you all think. Here's SO's license info for reference: My understanding is that the potential issue would be with this clause: which could potentially require go-vhd and projects that depend on it to use the Creative Commons license as well.
Thanks for the report! can you please take a look if this is concerning? If so, we'll check if we can avoid this dependency (looks unlikely unless we duplicate what it's ) or we'll follow up upstream to update the code. /cc OWNERS for this repo
CC-BY-SA can be problematic in Apache-2.0 projects like k8s because of the ShareAlike aspect as noted. I'd recommend working with upstream to rewrite just that one function particularly since it looks like it's fairly limited.
let's please move this issue to kubernetes/kubernetes?
/provider azure
/sig release /area code-organization
The label(s) cannot be applied, because the repository doesn't have them <detailsIn response to : /sig release /area code-organization Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
cc /assign
/area code-organization
/assign
/milestone v1.19 /priority important-soon
Not a huge difference, but this is likely actually licensed under , not 4.0. See
the k/k code actually does not reference , since that function is in , do you mean we should remove from k/k totally?
Yes, we would either need to remove from k/k or ask the maintainers of to update . This means that (and k/k if we end up using it) would need to be licensed until CC-BY-SA.
Would this ultimately be backported to older versions of k8s or would you just do it in 1.19?

thanks, Let me remove the code in v1.19, actually that part of functionality is deprecated in Azure cloud provider already. My initial thought is only do this in v1.19
/kind bug /priority important-soon /sig cloud-provider /area provider/azure
Since it isn't trivial to remove as a dependency entirely (), I've created upstream to track updating the code there.