Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of craig.russell@oracle.com
 designates 156.151.31.81 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Craig L Russell <craig.russell@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFG6u8F5wJpkZHu+fJnDck94iXLUKU_x+RnQSLyxxsPQmK2Shw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:49:12 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3FEF3BD8-780C-4AD0-8D26-E1A8D486CFD5@oracle.com>
References: <51916CDE.4060306@schor.com>
 <B9D1935B-8072-4556-BEF7-7FFC291F8B6E@gmail.com>
 <315711F0-58B0-4302-89B0-B2178840D4AA@gmail.com>
 <CAFG6u8F5wJpkZHu+fJnDck94iXLUKU_x+RnQSLyxxsPQmK2Shw@mail.gmail.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org


On May 17, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be =
included in
>>>> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>>>>=20
>>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 =
of that
>>>> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>>>=20
>>>> 2 questions:
>>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache =
distributions, and
>>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
>>>=20
>>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update =
our web site to reflect this=85
>>=20
>> Done.
>=20
> Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
>=20
> 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
> terms of this License."
>=20
> Doesn't that make this license category B?  (Note: this comment also
> applies to previous versions of the license, including versions that
> were previously approved)

This license is not viral. The terms of 4.a refer to "the Work" not to =
derived works. Specifically, in 4.a "...but this does not require the =
Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of =
this License".

All I think it means is that including the Work in an Apache =
distribution needs to preserve the license terms of the Work.

So I don't see the issue.

Craig
>=20
>> --kevan
>=20
> - Sam Ruby
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>=20

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


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