www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raymond Augé (JIRA) <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LEGAL-342) Repackaging non-apache artifacts and the licensing consequences
Date Wed, 08 Nov 2017 18:37:00 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Raymond Augé updated LEGAL-342:
-------------------------------
    Description: 
>From an Apache project, I would like to re-package an artifact who's license/code/sources
did not originate from Apache but I want to ensure I don't infringe the original's license.

This brings me to question the legitimacy of the process followed by some Apache projects
to repackage similar artifacts.

Without wanting to pick on anyone an example will be helpful [1]. (Note that I've discovered
several such occurrences.)

The artifact who's pom I referenced [1] seems to have been produced by repackaging a non-Apache
licensed source artifact (actually licensed as CDDL+GPL-1.1). (The resulting artifact does
not seem to refer to the original license.)

I'm tempted to do something similar but would like to know if there any risk with this approach?
Is there risk of infringing the original license?

[1] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/specs/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1/2.9.0/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1-2.9.0.pom

  was:
>From an Apache project, I would like to re-package an artifact who's license/code/sources
did not originate from Apache but I want to ensure I don't infringe the original's license.

This brings me to question the legitimacy of the process followed by some Apache projects
to repackage similar artifacts.

Without wanting to pick on anyone an example will be helpful [1]. (Note that I've discovered
several such occurrences.)

The artifact who's pom I referenced [1] seems to have been produced by repackaging a non-Apache
licensed source artifact (actually licensed as CDDL+GPL-1.1). (The resulting artifact does
not seem to refer to the original license.)

I'm tempted to do something similar but would like to know if there any risk with this approach?
Has the original license been infringed?

[1] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/specs/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1/2.9.0/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1-2.9.0.pom


> Repackaging non-apache artifacts and the licensing consequences
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-342
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-342
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Raymond Augé
>
> From an Apache project, I would like to re-package an artifact who's license/code/sources
did not originate from Apache but I want to ensure I don't infringe the original's license.
> This brings me to question the legitimacy of the process followed by some Apache projects
to repackage similar artifacts.
> Without wanting to pick on anyone an example will be helpful [1]. (Note that I've discovered
several such occurrences.)
> The artifact who's pom I referenced [1] seems to have been produced by repackaging a
non-Apache licensed source artifact (actually licensed as CDDL+GPL-1.1). (The resulting artifact
does not seem to refer to the original license.)
> I'm tempted to do something similar but would like to know if there any risk with this
approach? Is there risk of infringing the original license?
> [1] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/specs/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1/2.9.0/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1-2.9.0.pom



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

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


Mime
View raw message