camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Müller <christian.muel...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: camel-dropbox
Date Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:38:56 GMT
MIT/X11 licensed software can be included. Have a look at [1].

[1] https://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories

Best,
Christian
-----------------

Software Integration Specialist

Apache Member
V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer
Apache Incubator PMC Member

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Christoph Emmersberger
<cemmersb@gmail.com>wrote:

> + 1 for handling it the proposed way.
>
> I just checked the legal page of ASF [1] and figured that MIT license is
> basically compatible with ASF 2.0 [2].
>
> However the statement regarding MIT license is not 100% clear, since it is
> related to Ruby Gems and ending with the following statement:
>
> "... other licenses (such as MIT) may also be OK, depending on the
> license."
>
> Therefore I would propose the following:
>
> a) First, hand over the contribution on camel-extra
> b) Get some clarification on licensing
> c) If there is no licensing issue, we'll handle it as we've done in the
> past and migrate the component to ASF [3].
>
> Best,
>
> Christoph
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#ruby-license
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-7090
>
>
> On 07 Mar 2014, at 12:58, Pontus Ullgren <ullgren@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the the dropbox core API zip file there is a License.txt
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/developers/downloads/sdks/core/java/dropbox-java-sdk-1.7.6.zip
> ---
> Copyright (c) 2013 Dropbox Inc., http://www.dropbox.com/
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
> a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
> permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
> the following conditions:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
> NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
> OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
> WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> --
>
> Why would this license stop the camel-dropbox component from beeing
> released under the Apache License ?
> To me the dropbox API license seems pretty permissive.
>
> // Pontus
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Henryk Konsek <hekonsek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What I can not answer is, if the dropbox license and terms of conditions
> meet the general ASF requirements or not.
>
>
> Apparently not.
>
> If it is not possible to contribute the component to the ASF branch, I
> would
> vote for a contribution to camel-extra.
>
>
> I asked to author of the DropBox pull request if he would like to
> contribute the project to Camel Extra.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Henryk Konsek
> http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message