www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Creative Commons Attribution License
Date Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:33:02 GMT
Going back to the original question, the concensus seems to be:

1) A project can unconditionally depend on a binary released under the
CCAL, e.g. jcip annotations.

2) A jar released under CCAL can be stored in the Maven repository;
how it gets there is a matter to be resolved.

As it happens, it looks like the annotations classes are already in
the M2 repository as part of Findbugs. However Findbugs is LGPL v2.1
licensed.

On 29/05/2008, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> Fair point - their attribution clauses (section 3b) are a bit more
>  convoluted than such things normally are. I'll note it on the
>  resolved-questions page. Digging into the details of 3b:
>
>  *1* Keep copyright statements [no problem, we'd do the same for anything]
>  *2* Identify the original author [I'd expect the copyright statement
>  to do that, but maybe there if is none then we could slip up here]
>  *3* Sponsor if supplied [This is the one I wouldn't expect us to
>  usually look for]
>  *4* Title if supplied [It would get named in some way]
>  *5* URL
>  *6* Derivative work statement [This would then be in ASF source rather
>  than a 3rd party dependency and would go in the NOTICE]
>
>  Summarizing, we would generally do 1 and 6 by default. It seems
>  unlikely that we would not cover 2 and 4, unlikely that 3 happens very
>  often and quite likely that we would link to the URL.
>
>  Maybe however we should have a defined format for a third party notice
>  file. All of the above are good ideas (except sponsor) for any third
>  party dependency and having a common format for such things across our
>  projects seems good. I've seen some xml files in oss projects recently
>  (I think they were JBoss ones) so it might be that there is a nascent
>  standard available. Maven have also been digging into such things,
>  though they've been putting it in the NOTICE.
>
>  Hen
>
>
>  On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Gilles Scokart <gscokart@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > What about the attribution : "You must attribute the work in the
>  > manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that
>  > suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 2008/5/29 Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>:
>  >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>  >>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com>
wrote:
>
> >>>> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact...
>
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message