Looking back at OASIS license I am not sure now. I've made https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-925 to clarify.
As far as I can see why are fine legally to distribute the ODF spec files as we have not modified them, however it would seem to be against ASF policy: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification I believe that as we are legally OK against OASIS, and we are still an incubating project with DISCLAIMER, this policy breach should not be a blocker for this release - but it would have to be sorted before the first proper ASF release of Taverna Language. Other views? Mentors? 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
