Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates
 209.85.211.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=DncA0+bAERfb7z/UOYWQ+z9NWcnIaYQdd15EW7c0nEG5LOdPWKFypr2aIOptsqx4NX
         OnEldHFzuVIxYe0g9Ppqtvfbq33Z7uHlnzKOtelLdn/uQ6Cn/IvTbNyXBvW1IYRVMyIa
         HE4PtGdNyULHMM7UAcjB8hMVTql1jRBTVmTEs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1672842250.35431264503034582.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
References: <389614191.1254904831651.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
	 <1672842250.35431264503034582.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:25:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3d4032301001280325h49e6a537qcd53363874ea1757@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
	in ASF repo as testing resources
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Stefano Bagnara (JIRA) <jira@apache.org> w=
rote:
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=3Dcom.=
atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedComment=
Id=3D12804966#action_12804966 ]
>
> Stefano Bagnara commented on LEGAL-64:
> --------------------------------------
>
> Guys, you always tell that we should not pursue general categorization or=
 generic answers to licensing issues. Here I was just asking if we can use =
Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" for our jDKIM test suite.

+1

> You talk about "borderline between category A and category B" but I'm not=
 experienced enough with how that categories maps to "data" (and not source=
 code or binary code). Previosly you said "Category A but not for Object co=
de or Executables", so I would interpret this as a YES as the "data" i refe=
r to is mainly composed of "mime messages" (email).
>
> So unless anyone object I'll take this as a YES.

+1

> Can you also tell me if a "classic" reference in the NOTICE file and appe=
nding the Artistic license to the *source* distribution LICENSE file (tests=
 are not in the binary distributions) is required/OK/enough/not required.
>
> Again, unless someone will object I will take that we have to add it to N=
OTICE (attribution clause) and to LICENSE (as we do everytime something we =
ship includes some non apache licensed "stuff")

+1

- Sam Ruby

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