I think CCLA https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/ is OK because it is only an attribution requirement - so it's pretty much like a BSD 2-clause license. Derivatives are OK.
< 2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, copyright license, without any obligation for accounting to me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement any Contribution to the full extent of my copyright interest in the Contribution. > 2.2. Attribution. As a condition of the copyright grant, you must include an > attribution to the Specification in any derivative work you make based on the > Specification. That attribution must include, at minimum, the Specification > name and version number. I now see we forgot to mention the version number in the LICENSE file for oa.rdf (but I added it now for the future). However the version number *is* included in our copy of the work: https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-language/blob/master/taverna-robundle/src/main/resources/ontologies/oa.rdf#L50 ..and so it should be fine legally as the 2.2 clause does not say HOW we should include the attribution. (Apache License on the other hand is more picky, in that what we put in our NOTICE must stay in the NOTICE file). While technically just including Creative Commons and BSD-like license/copyright statements directly in the copied source file is legally sufficient, we think it's good to also help the downstream users find such by listing them in LICENSE as we have done. However there is no requirement from them to list them in NOTICE, and so we don't. Perhaps the W3C CCLA should be raised with LEGAL so it gets added to the list. It's a bit weird license in that it mainly says what the contributor to a W3C Community Group have granted (to whom?) - but not necessarily that this license has been granted to anyone downloading the spec. On 29 February 2016 at 01:18, Gale Naylor <[email protected]> wrote: > More on LICENSES > Apache includes Creative Commons Attribution licenses in their "weak > copyleft" list and (though I don't understand why) Apache suggests > attaching "an appropriate and prominent label to the distribution ... for > example in a README." (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html). Should > we have some kind of notice in the scufl2-wfdesc and robundle (etc.) README > files that flags the embedded CCA licenses? > > Also, I have yet to independently verify this, but I presume it was > determined earlier that the oa.rdf (robundle) W3C CCLA license is okay, as > well as the Open-document (robundle) OASIS license/notification. > > Thanks, > > Gale > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:02 PM Gale Naylor <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> RE: LICENSES >> Now I've come across this set of statements: "These third party notices >> vary from license to license. Apache releases should contain a copy of each >> license, usually contained in the LICENSE document." ( >> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices.) But >> maybe this is saying: Apache releases should contain a copy of each (3rd >> party) license, which is usually contained in the *3rd party* LICENSE >> document? (Rather than saying the notice should be in the Apache LICENSE >> document, which is what I thought at first. Can anyone shed light on this? >> >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 2:54 PM Gale Naylor <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you very much for the details, Andy. I'm doing my best to come up >>> to speed on all this. >>> >>> A question: >>> In looking at the LICENSE files, and the Apache documentation ( >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice), I'm wondering >>> about the Taverna Language License, which contains several copyright >>> notices. The documentation I referenced says: "Use the NOTICE file to >>> collect copyright notices and required attributions." Am I misinterpreting >>> this? Should these copyright notices be in the NOTICE file? (Profuse >>> apologies if this was already discussed when I was less up-to-speed.) >>> >>> Gale >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 2:19 AM Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 27/02/16 23:33, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>>> > Use this thread to discuss any issues with RC5 which is currently >>>> > under VOTE. If needed we'll also make Jira issues. >>>> > >>>> > Under the corresponding [VOTE] thread - only reply with your vote, >>>> > e.g. "+1". It is a single vote for releasing all three artifacts at >>>> > once. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Releases are the high point a project. >>>> >>>> PPMC members - feel morally obliged to vote! >>>> >>>> Everyone else - help out - it's not "devs and users" - it's "community". >>>> >>>> Don't forget what really matters when you vote +1 is that the release >>>> meets the Apache requirements and then any additional local community >>>> norms. >>>> >>>> A quick and not complete summary of what a VOTE entails: >>>> >>>> ** Source >>>> >>>> The source artifact is the thing being released. >>>> Binaries and git are secondary. >>>> >>>> People voting must download the source artifact and check it. >>>> >>>> do the signatures on the source archive check out? >>>> does the commit id lead to the same sources? >>>> >>>> ** ASF licensing policy >>>> >>>> Much of this code being is released for the first time so LICENSE and >>>> NOTICE are mostly new. >>>> >>>> does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions? >>>> is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact (both source >>>> and binary artifacts)? >>>> >>>> ** Build >>>> >>>> does the build of the source artifact actually produce the binaries? >>>> check the dependencies. >>>> >>>> ** Process >>>> >>>> Support the release manager! >>>> >>>> The minimum is 3 +1 votes with a majority in favour. >>>> The RM decides about what to do about comments. >>>> >>>> Does the quality level meet the group norms? >>>> ("can we live with it?" and not "is it perfect?") >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
