Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <27980260.3118131190477870754.JavaMail.root@elysia.void.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:17:31 +0200
From: Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20051206 Thunderbird/1.6a1 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
To: James Developers List <server-dev@james.apache.org>
CC: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Re: OpenSPF test resources licenses
References: <4221429.1452561190192756182.JavaMail.root@elysia.void.it>
 <1190471291.5689.55.camel@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <1190471291.5689.55.camel@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 11:02 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We (Apache JAMES project) are developing an SPF implementation in java
>> (jSPF) [1].
>>
>> Part of our test suite works by parsing 2 YAML files [2][3] provided as
>> part of the OpenSPF group [4] TestSuite [5]
>>
>> Currently we wrote the java tests to simply "silently pass" if the 2
>> yaml files are not there and we place them only in our local checkout,
>> but we would like to understand if we are allowed to place them in our
>> svn repository and to redistribute them in the sources tar.gz.
>>
>> The 2 files [2][3] have no specific license header.
>> The OpenSPF group website [4] tells "Unless noted otherwise, all content
>> on this website is dual-licensed under the  GNU GPL v2 and the  Creative
>> Commons CC BY-SA 2.5."
>>
>> So the first question is: are we allowed to redistribute unmodified yaml
>> files originally licensed under the "Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.5"? Do
>> we just need the usual NOTICE reference and LICENSE pointer?
> 
> from what i can tell, Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.5 is a reciprocal
> license. AIUI this would mean that it shouldn't be distributed as part
> of an apache release.
> 
> (hopefully people will jump in with corrections if this is incorrect)

Norman Maurer already tested this topic in past January in legal-discuss:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200701.mbox/<45AB8260.8080102@apache.org>
Unfortunately it had no replies.

Here is the last interesting email we found about this topic:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<c5e632550610270807qad46ffaodc4d65703676608f@mail.gmail.com>

Cliff said:
-------
Questionable -- needs a closer look (would probably get same treatment
as OSL): Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
-------

BTW I think that for the jSPF specific issue we can rely on the
alternative PSFL solution and even better convince the openspf group to
release the next test suite version under a BSD license.

>> Second option: an spf-devel member reported that the yaml files have
>> been developed as part of pyspf [6] and are released under the Python
>> Software Foundation License [7]. The PSFL is a BSD derived license (in
>> principle) but contains a lot of sentences and is not listed in the ASF
>> license guidelines [8].
>>
>> WDYT?
> 
> the python license looks BSDish to me. opinions?

At the moment we altered jSPF source tree to include and reference the
PSFL license for the 2 involved files. IANAL, but it looks BSDish to me too.

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org