www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stian Soiland-Reyes (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LEGAL-241) Is W3C Community Contributor License Agreement a Category-A license?
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2016 01:09:40 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-241?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Stian Soiland-Reyes updated LEGAL-241:
--------------------------------------
    Description: 
In TAVERNA-932 we wonder if our use of https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-language/blob/0.15.0-incubating/taverna-robundle/src/main/resources/ontologies/oa.rdf
is considered Category-A license.

Note that the upstream file https://www.w3.org/ns/oa/oa.rdf (which must be fetched with {{curl
-H Accept: application/rdf+xml}}) does not include file-headers - I added those based on the
[parent document|http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/index.html] which says:

{quote}
Copyright © 2012-2013 the Contributors to the Open Annotation Core Data Model Specification,
published by the Open Annotation Community Group under the W3C Community Contributor License
Agreement (CLA). A human-readable summary is available.
{quote}

It is a bit unclear what the license for downstream readers actually is, as that [W3C Community
Contributor License Agreement|https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/] is mainly
written for W3C Community Group contributors (which incidentally includes myself). 

However it says contributions include:

{quote}
2. Copyrights.

    2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright),
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, copyright license, without any obligation
for accounting to me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement any Contribution to the full extent of my copyright
interest in the Contribution.

    2.2. Attribution. As a condition of the copyright grant, you must include an attribution
to the Specification in any derivative work you make based on the Specification. That attribution
must include, at minimum, the Specification name and version number.
{quote}

which to me sounds like a permissive category-A BSD-like license.

What is the view of LEGAL?

  was:
In TAVERNA-932 we wonder if our use of https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-language/blob/0.15.0-incubating/taverna-robundle/src/main/resources/ontologies/oa.rdf
is considered Category-A license.

Note that the upstream file https://www.w3.org/ns/oa/oa.rdf (which must be fetched with {{curl
-H Accept: application/rdf+xml}}) does not include file-headers - I added those based on the
[parent document|http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/index.html] which says:

{quote}
Copyright © 2012-2013 the Contributors to the Open Annotation Core Data Model Specification,
published by the Open Annotation Community Group under the W3C Community Contributor License
Agreement (CLA). A human-readable summary is available.
{quote}

It is a bit unclear what the license for downstream readers actually is, as that [CLA|https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/]
is mainly written for W3C Community Group contributors (which incidentally includes myself).


However it says contributions include:

{quote}
2. Copyrights.

    2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright),
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, copyright license, without any obligation
for accounting to me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement any Contribution to the full extent of my copyright
interest in the Contribution.

    2.2. Attribution. As a condition of the copyright grant, you must include an attribution
to the Specification in any derivative work you make based on the Specification. That attribution
must include, at minimum, the Specification name and version number.
{quote}

which to me sounds like a permissive category-A BSD-like license.

What is the view of LEGAL?


> Is W3C Community Contributor License Agreement a Category-A license?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-241
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-241
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Stian Soiland-Reyes
>
> In TAVERNA-932 we wonder if our use of https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-language/blob/0.15.0-incubating/taverna-robundle/src/main/resources/ontologies/oa.rdf
is considered Category-A license.
> Note that the upstream file https://www.w3.org/ns/oa/oa.rdf (which must be fetched with
{{curl -H Accept: application/rdf+xml}}) does not include file-headers - I added those based
on the [parent document|http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/index.html] which
says:
> {quote}
> Copyright © 2012-2013 the Contributors to the Open Annotation Core Data Model Specification,
published by the Open Annotation Community Group under the W3C Community Contributor License
Agreement (CLA). A human-readable summary is available.
> {quote}
> It is a bit unclear what the license for downstream readers actually is, as that [W3C
Community Contributor License Agreement|https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/]
is mainly written for W3C Community Group contributors (which incidentally includes myself).

> However it says contributions include:
> {quote}
> 2. Copyrights.
>     2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of the applicable
copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, copyright license, without
any obligation for accounting to me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement any Contribution to the full extent
of my copyright interest in the Contribution.
>     2.2. Attribution. As a condition of the copyright grant, you must include an attribution
to the Specification in any derivative work you make based on the Specification. That attribution
must include, at minimum, the Specification name and version number.
> {quote}
> which to me sounds like a permissive category-A BSD-like license.
> What is the view of LEGAL?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

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


Mime
View raw message