Let me see if I can clarify my question/issue.
For these particular DFDL Schema test files created by IBM incorporating snippets from the DFDL spec document, you suggested we separate these parts. We cannot do that. These files are test data for daffodil in the same way that a Pascal program is test data to a Pascal comipler. To modify them is to lose their entire reason for being. Since we cannot do the suggested separation, then what else can/should we do? We're already listing these files individually, and pointing out their IBM and OGF content. Is anything else necessary? ...mike beckerle ________________________________ From: John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 1:29 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2 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. > -Mike Beckerle > > > >