Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA22200B70 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 13:24:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id A979B160AB2; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id CB667160AA6 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 13:24:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 71128 invoked by uid 500); 27 Aug 2016 11:24:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 71105 invoked by uid 99); 27 Aug 2016 11:24:00 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:24:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1594B1A092F for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:24:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.979 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx2-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k5u_PAIof7YX for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by mx2-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 07D9B5F30A for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Air-McShane.local ([74.104.150.151]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M3C7d-1aoGJY05e3-00ss0G for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 13:23:55 +0200 Subject: Re: Dual-licensed logo PNG (CC-BY 3.0, LGPL 3.0)? [TAVERNA] To: general@incubator.apache.org References: From: Shane Curcuru Message-ID: <54fdafd6-64c3-f564-7982-e57465d6567b@shanecurcuru.org> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 07:23:52 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:qaWK+2IMPuEmob0yVNCMPYxIVsWey3PoU9XHSp3UZ9FSz5KMVjQ WAcdUo3Sai0Ct4IbzWkvDEZJyUTTD3QhcQjMMrM5nmRF/fOu88sFGg2Jl6A8czIS8CBMmGz ckMK7JJtOLyraFt5qUxZdSNoa1DnSBj/OtZ3LJljjvxPzNz670wdprjPRSGW1JE0ZxHCjpT pRGEYEOEvWMpkf4alT+EQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:kw9khioz55w=:4Uv2MdWQm41VjC5ZgwiRBM JO/yL8nPirAjRR27lPsXACjmu0NfcoCOzBphpyL0sWMVyJFPjxM7mgGSLXJwFyKDTSiDL75wF MqZfYUTwI/MXC1iEwlgxCtfnVMtSceGwRhQX+ZogjXVJ5Vni/kWlsUvUQGq4RrkLHLNU9iFlf 5SHarGQkJUl3rTn5edDu2+62mpIDIJMvmVucTWWYLFjhMfffSzyp4DPFw/irW6PxFgEOVVAvg yXd8+80rwmY82EHpMIeU/QSSATzgfSxQ+vI59yJs+1uxmZsW1DZzZPKCZCjWy4I7DQgTl00HS RJpG4q86MwY6y8p7ZwpztRyhKz76aCZL1oM3x1XPf+DSoH6VIFKjuDJ9WtfKp1+fUnibnuSrR kEyCtZYzgeh93auXnPquLxVta1qzmEGaFaTAfbAtryyBaGGunMpgLQlZOikvpxsXz0J2+WzTg vzLWWD9GulgMjwYSkKeJPO248E5g9AZPF/AcLlTs3UOdVpp47iaqyJD7MP7Rtg46OU//yJjTC wS8eKOkksnV3Ul/jRRT0AypP+eNssbOhIkublNEFCvQuLE6cffcYAv8FEaZlHCFMlzsc8MxJo +66fIgAvT6MC8nJGpdSdjzxWsL8CZIH+JB9U8HM5i7tD6JO7FgEdn1Rxk905jOxLv+R53p6Ft dBBxjjv+RGgIFVsFtS1sTSSTcAT6x207gdO0aD7yrg+QILFAqWqEOdq9e3X1rmdNcFpVpfUn9 cKWct3LhpHv2yFuB archived-at: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:24:02 -0000 Indeed, I find it wholly unthinkable that we'd include any LGPL bits in an Apache product release, even if it's an ambiguous choice of licenses. There is no ambiguity in what types of licenses are allowed in Apache releases. The only way to do this (IMO, I'm not VP, Legal) is to make clear that we are licensing the unmodified graphic as CC-SA in our release. If someone wants to include a note elsewhere in the release pointing to the original source of the PNG, that's fine. Please be sure this is noted on your project lists so your mentors can track it as well. - Shane Niclas Hedhman wrote on 8/26/16 10:25 PM: > Hi, > > I would recommend that we only license that under CC-SA, but you might want > to point out that the media files are also available under LGPL3. The > downstream user can re-apply (or swap with) the LGPL3 if they want to, as > those media files are unmodified and we lay no additional claims. > > > Cheers > Niclas > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Our GSOC student wants to include a PNG for a CWL logo (for >> representing CWL services within Apache Taverna), but the original >> logo is dual-licensed: >> >> From https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/blob/ >> master/LICENSE.md >> >>> The Common Workflow Language Logos are (C) Copyright 2016 the Common >> Workflow Language Project and are released under the terms of the GNU >> Lesser General Public License, version 3 or any later version, or, at your >> option, of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. >> >> >> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#cc-sa says: >> >>> Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 >> and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included >> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may >> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed >> work, please contact the Legal PMC. >> >> >> So I guess our best option is to use it under CC-SA 3.0 - but as LGPL >> 3.0 in this case is not effectively incompatible with ASF license >> either direction (it's easy to replace a PNG file in a JAR) - I don't >> see a reason why we have to remove that dual-license choice for >> downstream users? >> >> That is - my question is - are we fine in NOT specifying which of the >> two licenses we choose to distribute the PNG under? >> >> (This would allow for instance a GPL 3.0 downstream project to embed >> our code AND the logo without re-sourcing it from upstream) >> >> >> >> Here's our student's proposed modifications to append to our project's >> LICENSE: >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-common- >> activities/pull/21/files >> >> >> I assume we don't need to also modify our NOTICE file? Am I correct >> in this understanding? Or should we do something more, e.g. >> cwl-logo-header.txt file next to the PNG or adding to the README? >> >> >> >> BTW - I have raised an issue upstream about the attribution as "Common >> Workflow Language Project" does not seem to be a legal copyright >> holder: >> >> https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/issues/2 >> >> ..I guess for now we should respect their current (C) statement. >> >> >> Any feedback? >> >> >> -- >> Stian Soiland-Reyes >> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons >> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org