Thanks for your recommendation. I've pushed those changes to PR-51,
which I think now satisfies all concerns raised regarding the
LICENSE/NOTICE files.

If you could do a quick skim of the new files to make sure everything
looks reasonable, that would be greatly appreciated. The files on github
are at:

Source LICENSE:

https://github.com/stevedlawrence/incubator-daffodil/blob/daffodil-1906-license/LICENSE

Source NOTICE:

https://github.com/stevedlawrence/incubator-daffodil/blob/daffodil-1906-license/NOTICE

Convenience binary LICENSE:

https://github.com/stevedlawrence/incubator-daffodil/blob/daffodil-1906-license/daffodil-cli/LICENSE-bin

Convenience binary NOTICE:

https://github.com/stevedlawrence/incubator-daffodil/blob/daffodil-1906-license/daffodil-cli/NOTICE-bin

Thanks,
- Steve

On 03/06/2018 01:38 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:39 AM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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