www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Svante Schubert <svante.schub...@gmail.com>
Subject Fwd: Re: How does a correct copyright is set?
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:08:07 GMT
FYI - a summary of my question by Rob below.

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	Re: How does a correct copyright is set?
Datum: 	Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:45:53 -0400
Von: 	Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
Antwort an: 	odf-dev@incubator.apache.org
An: 	odf-dev@incubator.apache.org <odf-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Kopie (CC): 	legal-discuss@apache.org

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Svante Schubert
<svante.schubert@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello legal experts,
> we would like to use a 3rd party library 'java-rdfa' and reference the
> download of the binaries via Maven.
> The maintainer is willing to assist us, if we tell him explicitly what
> has to be changed, but there is still some confusion about it.
> Could give us some insights, please!
> Some details about the problems in the mail below.

Summarizing the question:

The category-a list [1] currently includes:

"BSD (without advertising clause)."

It links to the 2-clause BSD [2].

Our understanding is that the 4-clause BSD ("original BSD") [3] is the
one that is not permitted.

But nothing is said about the newer 3-clause BSD ("simplified BSD")  [4]

Have we categorized the 3-clause BSD before?  Has this not come up?

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
[2] http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29
[4] http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause



> Thanks in advance,
> Svante
> Am 26.10.2013 13:04, schrieb Florian Hopf:
>> Hi,
>> On 14.10.2013 13:30, Svante Schubert wrote:
>>> So regarding the RDFa Parser, there is a BSD license in the pom.xml, but
>>> there is no correct license header in the sources and I have contacted
>>> the developer with Dave on CC.
>>> If there is no response, I assume from your wording that the pom.xml is
>>> a sufficient proof of license for us (Apache), right?
>> This is quite confusing. The pom in the official repo claims that it
>> is BSD licensed:
>> http://www.rootdev.net/maven/repo/net/rootdev/java-rdfa/0.4/java-rdfa-0.4.pom
>> The license that is referenced from the pom doesn't explicitly say
>> it's BSD: https://github.com/shellac/java-rdfa/wiki/licence but it
>> seems to be the same words as BSD-3:
>> http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
>> The same license is also included in the source tree and we would have
>> at least add this to our notice file I guess:
>> https://github.com/shellac/java-rdfa/blob/master/COPYING
>> So if I understood Nick correctly this would be enough to make sure it
>> is indeed licensed under BSD.
>> However, according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html only BSD-2
>> (without advertising clause) seems to be considered equal to Apache
>> License. http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html also links to the
>> BSD-2 license.
>> Honestly, I have no idea if it is ok or not. Nick, Dave do you have
>> any idea who could clarify if it's ok to use BSD-3?

View raw message