incubator-odf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Svante Schubert <svante.schub...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How does a correct copyright is set?
Date Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:36:02 GMT
Hi Nick (and other mentors),

meanwhile the code maintainer replied Dave and myself offlist.
He asked, what detailed changes we demand from him. He is willing to
cooperate ;)

So, what do we desire in detail?

Best regards,
Svante

Am 26.10.2013 13:04, schrieb Florian Hopf:
> 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?
>


Mime
View raw message