incubator-odf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Florian Hopf <fh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: How does a correct copyright is set?
Date Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:04:26 GMT
Hi,

On 14.10.2013 13:30, Svante Schubert wrote:
> So regarding the RDFa Parser, there is a BSD license in the pom.xml, but
> there is no correct license header in the sources and I have contacted
> the developer with Dave on CC.
>
> If there is no response, I assume from your wording that the pom.xml is
> a sufficient proof of license for us (Apache), right?
>

This is quite confusing. The pom in the official repo claims that it is 
BSD licensed: 
http://www.rootdev.net/maven/repo/net/rootdev/java-rdfa/0.4/java-rdfa-0.4.pom

The license that is referenced from the pom doesn't explicitly say it's 
BSD: https://github.com/shellac/java-rdfa/wiki/licence but it seems to 
be the same words as BSD-3: http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

The same license is also included in the source tree and we would have 
at least add this to our notice file I guess: 
https://github.com/shellac/java-rdfa/blob/master/COPYING

So if I understood Nick correctly this would be enough to make sure it 
is indeed licensed under BSD.

However, according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html only BSD-2 
(without advertising clause) seems to be considered equal to Apache 
License. http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html also links to the BSD-2 
license.

Honestly, I have no idea if it is ok or not. Nick, Dave do you have any 
idea who could clarify if it's ok to use BSD-3?

-- 
Florian Hopf
Freelance Software Developer

http://blog.florian-hopf.de

Mime
View raw message