incubator-odf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: How does a correct copyright is set?
Date Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:55:27 GMT
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Svante Schubert
<svante.schubert@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>

Sorry, I've been rare on this list due to other commitments.

I think the recommended approach is like this:

1) If we're taking over a component and becoming the new maintainer of
it, then we'd want a Software Grant Agreement (SGA) from the current
owner.

or

2) If we're including a 3rd party module in our release as a
dependency, but we're not taking it over, then we want some clear
indication that it is using a category-a license (for source
dependencies) or category-b (for binary dependencies).

We're talking about case 2, right?  If so the simplest thing would be
for the author to clearly state the license, maybe via a LICENSE or
README file in the root of their JAR.

The 3-clause BSD does not have the advertising clause.  But that is
not the one linked to on the ASF page [1].  They link to the 2-clause
version.  The one we know is not permitted is the 4-clause version.
But it is not clear what the status of the 3-clause version.  And
don't even ask me about the Santa Clause version.   The right place to
get clarification on this would be the legal-discuss mailing list:
legal-discuss@apache.org


[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a


Regards,

-Rob

> 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