We'll see how this IPMC vote goes, but it seems we may have to revisit some of the issues from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-927 to avoid these ontology files embedded in Taverna Language.
I also re-checked the W3C files, and they have not edited them upstream to say explicitly that they are W3C Software License, although that was the response we got on the list. So do you think we need to look again at that idea of putting them in Taverna Extras on GitHub and then pull them down at build-time as Maven dependencies? (or perhaps better, look at re-coding so we don't need to embed these files at all, like how we worked around OGF schemas' unclear license? Feels bad to me to hand-re-code schemas.. but they are unlikely to change much now I guess) On Mon, 28 May 2018 22:43:22 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2018 12:25:47 -0700, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > -1 (binding) > > Thanks for checking! > > > There are several files in the source release that are licensed as: > > Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 > > > > This is a category B license. [1] > > We included the CC-BY-licensed ontologies for > compatibility, as we saw the category-b license FAQ says: > > > For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF > > product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is > > unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being > > specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is > > also permitted. An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, > > whose inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces > > specification. > > These OWL ontologies *are* directly consumed at runtime in source form, > unmodified and unlikely to be changed (that would defy their purpose of > compliance against their declared namespace). > > We have discussed in Taverna that we could move these to be packaged > outside ASF on GitHub (and somehow deployed to Maven Central by us > wearing non-ASF hats, so that we can use them as "binaries". Do you > think that workaround is necessary, or can we keep them given the "small > amount" consideration? > > (They are not executable source code, but more like namespace > declarations) > > > See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-927 > > > > I’ll note that Stian is listed as a > > copyright holder for some of these … Either these need to be > > relicensed to a category A license or some other mechanism will need > > to be found to make these optional. > > Yes, we did relicense to Apache License on several ontologies where Univ > of Manchester were the sole copyright holder and so were covered by the > Software Grant. > > Unfortunately some of the others have multiple institutions as copyright > holders; we can try to work with their community to change these to a > CatA license - however Apache License might not be ideal either here as > it is not compatible with GPL 2 (just 2+). > > > > The LICENSE file should include the other licenses and not references > > to them. > > I agree, this seems to have been missed. > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >
