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 Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:07:02 GMT
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:49 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Request is to categorize the BSD 3-clause license.   What we'll do
after will depend on that.  We've discussed distributing a
dependencies JAR for the convenience of developers who do not use
Maven. That JAR would roll up the binary classes of our dependencies.
For that, category-a or category-b should be fine.

-Rob

>
> 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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

Mime
View raw message