Steve

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:39 AM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 03/05/2018 01:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:12 PM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@tresys.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >>
> >> This issue is one of the last remaining things we need to resolve.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
> >>> throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
> >>> "ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
> >>> find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
> >>> containing the files are in:
> >>>
> >>>   daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
> >>>   daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same, please list these.  Also note that partial files get a bit
> muddier,
> >> if there's a way you can keep the files separate that would be make it
> >> easier (hence why I've asked about modifying the source).
> >> We can list these files, but decomposing them would lose the whole point
> >> of them, which is that Daffodil can run them, as is, as they were
> created
> >> by IBM, without changes being required. This is an important part of our
> >> interoperability claims with IBM's DFDL implementation. It's also not
> >> possible to split up a DFDL schema into multiple files without
> introducing
> >> the DFDL language issues associated with multi-file schema composition -
> >> e.g., namespaces, introduction of new lexical scopes around the
> contents of
> >> additional files, etc. Those are important things to test, but are not
> what
> >> these particular tests are about, so introducing them would reduce the
> >> isolation of the tested behaviors.
> >>
> >> To me this use of example snippets drawn from the OGF spec document is
> >> legitimate fair use, and is exactly what was intended by myself and the
> >> other authors when these examples were included in the DFDL
> specification.
> >>
> >> So how do we satisfy concerns around this matter? Can we simply identify
> >> exactly the files that contain this sort of material, and explain that
> >> these files are maintained as-is, in the form originally contributed,
> so as
> >> to serve to demonstrate interoperability with other implementations of
> the
> >> DFDL standard?
> >>
> >>
> > I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for.  My ask is that we list
> > out the license for the files coming from outside sources.
> >
> > I have an additional ask if we have modified the source code.
> >
> > Please note that if this is something derived from a specification, then
> > you're not actually bringing in source code.  We care about source code.
> >
>
> Some of our files are majority written by us (Apache v2) but include
> snippets that came out of the Open Grid Forum DFDL specification (OGF
> licensed). We did not make any changes to the snippets. Note that these
> snippets are XML schema, which could be considered source code, but if
> not maybe this is all moot?
>
> For example, this is one of those files:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/dpaspc7132.dfdl.xsd


I would move this section
https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/dpaspc7132.dfdl.xsd#L25-L28
into
the header.  But in general, we use the original file's license when we've
modified the code.


>
>
> In that file, lines 36-43 are an OGF snippet, but the rest of the file
> is custom written. The header of the schema is Apache v2 license, and
> line 25 contains a blurb about some content being OGF licensed. PR-51
> adds content to the OGF section of the LICENSE file specify these files
> that contain OGF content.
>
> You mentioned that files that contain mixed licenses can get muddy. Mike
> looked into separating out the OGF snippets and his conclusion is that
> separation would either be too difficult or would change the intention
> of a test, so would not be ideal.
>
> I guess we would just like clarity if we are properly handling these
> mixed files with the changes to LICENSE in PR-51 by listing those files
> in the OGF license section and including the OGF copyright blurb in the
> files themselves.
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve
>

Reply via email to