www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org>
Subject Re: How does a correct copyright is set?
Date Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:22:58 GMT
Note that the 3-clause's extra clause is also found in Apache 1.1 :)

Another note - "3-clause" is a horrible name; I've seen BSD licenses with 3
clauses, one of which is the advertising clause.

Third note: The Dom4j link on resolved.html goes to a spam site now.

Hen


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:49 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am not a legal expert.
> >
> > I just wanted to clarify the request.
> >
> > The Apache product would like to depend on a 3rd party library.
> > Does it also wish to distribute the library, e.g. as part of a binary
> > distribution?
> > I ask this because the rules are stricter for distribution.
> >
>
> Request is to categorize the BSD 3-clause license.   What we'll do
> after will depend on that.  We've discussed distributing a
> dependencies JAR for the convenience of developers who do not use
> Maven. That JAR would roll up the binary classes of our dependencies.
> For that, category-a or category-b should be fine.
>
> -Rob
>
> >
> > On 1 November 2013 13:28, 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.
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message