On Oct 1, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
Simon Laws wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Simon Laws wrote:
<snip>
Excellent Luciano. Well found. If they came from Tuscany in
the
first place, which this post would seem to suggest, they can
stay with the ASL2 license.
I agree about sca.tld though. Judging by the commit log that
was
copied from the spec.
Regards
Simon
Folks,
If those files are derived from material in the OSOA specs, then
they will fall under the license of the OSOA specs.
I dont see how the material can use an ASL2 license.
Yours, Mike.
Mike
Looking back at svn it seems that it was the other way round for
the sca-api files. Part of them came from the original IBM/BEA
contribution and subsequent development went on in sandboxes
(presumably in parallel with the spec development) before they were
copied into trunk. I assume that the people involved in creating
these files chose to contribute them to Tuscany and ASF2 license
them and also chose to contribute them to OSOA for inclusion in the
spec. Sound plausible?
Simon
Folks,
The APIs in the SCA Java specifications were developed by a
Technical Committee process, involving a whole group of people from
many companies, working under a legal agreement relating to the OSOA
collaboration. The APIs are not the creation of any one person, but
are the results of the joint deliberations of the technical
committee. This is true whatever is said in SVN about the origins
of the files currently in Tuscany.
The APIs are created and are licensed for use under the terms of the
OSOA collaboration. Any files which match the specifications are
simply copies of the material in the specifications and fall under
the copyright and licensing laid down by the OSOA collaboration.
The same principle would apply to OASIS specifications (they have
similar copyright and licensing to OSOA).
That would seem to depend on the donations to Apache. If those files
were donated to the Apache Tuscany project by IBM or BEA and they were
the sole copyright holders for those files, then they would not be
covered by the OSOA license. The Tuscany project would be free to do
with them what the Tuscany project wants. The fact that the files
might have also been donated to OSOA, is irrelevant. Unless the
propriety of the donation/contribution to the Tuscany project is in
doubt (e.g. they weren't the sole copyright holder), there's nothing
which would force a switch to the OSOA license for those files. If IBM/
BEA weren't the copyright holder, then certainly agree...
That said, regardless of the propriety of those files, seem to be many
reasons that OSOA licensed versions of these files should be used...
Updates/changes/fixes to these files would certainly be problematic...
By the way, would seem a lot easier if properly licensed versions of
these files were actually provided by OSOA, rather than embedded
within specs...
--kevan
