incubator-odf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How does a correct copyright is set?
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:49:16 GMT
I am not a legal expert.

I just wanted to clarify the request.

The Apache product would like to depend on a 3rd party library.
Does it also wish to distribute the library, e.g. as part of a binary
distribution?
I ask this because the rules are stricter for distribution.


On 1 November 2013 13:28, Svante Schubert <svante.schubert@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello legal experts,
>
> we would like to use a 3rd party library 'java-rdfa' and reference the
> download of the binaries via Maven.
>
> The maintainer is willing to assist us, if we tell him explicitly what
> has to be changed, but there is still some confusion about it.
>
> Could give us some insights, please!
>
> Some details about the problems in the mail below.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> 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?
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

Mime
View raw message