groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pascal Schumacher <pascalschumac...@gmx.net>
Subject Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Date Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:14:21 GMT
Hello everybody,

from this discussion and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 
I deduct, that Groovy can not include its "Creative Commons 
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in 
the distribution. Is that correct?

Thanks and kind regards,
Pascal

Am 16.06.2015 um 22:05 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Note that if the docs are CC-SA, they could be handled externally
> and not bundled with the actual release. That is non-optimal, but
> may provide some breathing time to do a relicensing run.
>
>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> resolved.html says "Unmodified media", which was intended to mean images (audio,
video etc).
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-4
>>
>> I wouldn't expect any of those to have a file header (and would question whether
resolved.html says Groovy docs can be CC-BY SA).
>>
>> On the more general question - I doubt there is a default file header. I don't see
anything suggested here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ
>>
>> Presumably RAT has to be aware of the variants in general use and support them all
as it discovers them.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:25 PM, P. Ottlinger <pottlinger@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi *,
>>
>> we've received a request to add a new license to Apache Creadur/RAT
>> (release audit tool). We are not sure which text needs to be included in
>> files to be properly CC-licensed?
>>
>> The page
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa
>> says that CC-SA is a valid license for Apache projects.
>>
>> What is a valid file header we need to scan for to properly mark it as
>> CC-licensed during RAT runs?
>> Is it
>> '
>> THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
>> CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS
>> PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE
>> WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS
>> PROHIBITED.
>>
>> BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND
>> AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS
>> YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF
>> SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
>> '
>> ?
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback before we start implementing this feature.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>>
>> PS: Links for details:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-206
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


Mime
View raw message