www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Libbrecht <p...@activemath.org>
Subject Re: Standards-oriented content in svn (was: w3c license versus svn)
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:17:06 GMT
The idea is just that:
- it's standards' material so changes is not *wished* (in principle,  
you could always change, you should just be careful to name it  
differently)
- this does not follow the same rythm as any source of Apache

So making it "a binary dependency" as imported from a maven repo and  
thus not put in the source code is the right approach I feel.
That repo could be at Apache or at W3C... I don't really care.
It should just be a repository that is not within Apache sources.

paul



Le 26-déc.-08 à 22:56, Sam Ruby a écrit :

> While I continue to remain open to the idea that someday somebody will
> identify something that is so "standard" that it would not promote
> confusion if we were to legally include such in our repositories and
> even *gasp* legally distribute, I firmly believe that such needs to be
> addressed on a case by case basis.
>
> It may be true that Roy is right and this will never be the case.  I'm
> not so sure about that, but one thing I am sure of: this will not be
> resolved in the abstract.  Even a discussion of a standard repository
> provided by the W3C doesn't resolve this, at least not without
> considering the licenses of the artifacts in the repository in
> consideration.  In particular, if we are talking about code made
> available under a "Category A" license already (whether or not it is
> dual licensed), then a W3C repository is neither necessary nor
> sufficient for our needs.


Mime
View raw message