Hi Mike, -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Joyce <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:43 AM To: dev <[email protected]> Subject: Licensing concerns >Hi all, > >I'm going through and applying the necessary licenses for release (JIRA at >[1]) but I have some concerns. > >The UI code layout is seeded off angular-seed [2]. Officially there isn't >a >license for this project (at least I couldn't find one). See: https://github.com/ryanzec/angular-seed/blob/master/LICENSE Looks like a modified MIT style license to me. I would create an issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL that asks for an interpretation on that license. >Certain files do >list license info and I gather from the ASF docs [3] that I should leave >them alone. You should, we don't change existing licenses on files. We declare those licenses and honor them in our NOTICE file. >My concern is for files that were boilerplate from >angular-seed. Some of these have been heavily modified. For instance, the >unit test file for controllers came from [4] but now looks like [5]. This means we have created a derivative work. If my interpretation of the angular-seed license is right (again file the LEGAL issue and we'll see), that is totally fine and allowed by MIT. And it's compat with Category-A since that derivative work is licensed by us under the ALv2. >This >has been almost entirely changed. However, the unit test file for services >is (nearly) identical. See [6] and [7] for a comparison. Yep, so the unit test isn't a derivative work and is covered by MIT. The other code changed is a derivative work and is licensed under ALv2. > >Again, I gather from [3] that we should be leaving the unchanged files >alone. For the heavily changed files should we license those and what >constitutes 'heavily modified' vs 'lightly modified"? Nah -- there are derivative works; and then there are not. See above. Don't need to make it more complicated than that. >Would it be easier to >simply state in the NOTICE that this was built on top of the angular-seed >boilerplate code and leave the licence off the majority of those files? >Perhaps I should go through all the boilerplate files and wipe them clean >so we can license them? Or should I assume that boilerplate files are ok >to >tag with our license since that's probably what the original authors would >have intended even if we haven't made significant (or any) changes. > >Thoughts? Actions out of this: 1. File a LEGAL issue per my comments above 1a. In parallel update our NOTICE file with the information from the licenses of our dependencies 2. Once LEGAL issue is resolved we proceed That's it :) Cheers, Chris > >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLIMATE-107 >[2] https://github.com/angular/angular-seed >[3] https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >// Controllers comparison >[4] >https://github.com/angular/angular-seed/blob/master/test/unit/controllersS >pec.js >[5] >https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/climate/trunk/rcmet/src/main/ui >/test/unit/controllersSpec.js >// Services comparison >[6] >https://github.com/angular/angular-seed/blob/master/test/unit/servicesSpec >.js >[7] >https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/climate/trunk/rcmet/src/main/ui >/test/unit/servicesSpec.js ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
