Specifically the software grant [1] starts with:
WHEREAS, Licensor owns or has sufficient rights to contribute the
software source code and other related intellectual property as
itemized on Exhibit A ("Software") under the terms of this agreement
to the Foundation for use within Foundation software development
projects ("Projects").
I really don't see any issue with the images as they clearly are
"other related intellectual property".
Martijn
[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
On 5/18/08, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The software grant gives us the right to license everything inside the
> zip file under the Apache License. Hence, the images are subject to
> this provision in the software grant.
>
> This is not different from the source code in the zip file, which you
> are not questioning. Are you questioning the validity of the claim in
> the software grant?
>
>
> Martijn
>
> On 5/18/08, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But unless those images are ASL licensed (which images normally
> > aren't), shouldn't we at least ask which license they were originally
> > under? IANAL but as I see it:
> >
> > 1) The images are created by Thoof.com (pictures taken, manipulated
> > into what they are now). All is fine
> > 2) The images are 3. party, but created under ASL. All is fine
> > 3) The images are 3. party, under ASL compatiable license (f.ex. the
> > CC license that is approved). All is fine, but shouldn't we have it in
> > NOTICE?
> > 4) The images are 3. party, but under ASL incompatible license.
> > Problem! We should remove them from zip and not have them part of the
> > batch.
> >
> > It's not that I want to be really picky about those sweet fluffy
> > kitten images, but it's good practice for us.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Martijn Dashorst
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Given that the grant covers the whole kitten-captcha.zip file, we need
> > > to trust the IP governance of thoof.com. I am sure that they have done
> > > so.
> > >
> > > Until someone comes up and claims otherwise, we have done our due
> > > diligence. If they turn out to be not distributable, then we have to
> > > remove them, but then thoof is also liable.
> > >
> > > I don't see any problem whatsoever currently.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > > On 5/18/08, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> +1, given that the pictures are all checked for copyright.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Frank
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Thoof has generously donated their fluffy kitten-captcha to the
> Apache
> > >> > Wicket project for inclusion. Kitten captcha is a captcha that works
> > >> > through selecting pictures of kittens in a jumble of other objects,
> > >> > such as a hamster, guinea pig or rabbit.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is a vote to accept this donation. You can find the donation
> in SVN here:
> > >> >
> > >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket/common/incoming/
> > >> >
> > >> > The IP clearance is being tracked here:
> > >> >
> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1610
> > >> >
> > >> > and here (the official status report):
> > >> >
> > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/kitten-auth.html
> > >> >
> > >> > [ ] yes, accept kitten-captcha into Wicket
> > >> > [ ] no, <insert objection>
> > >> >
> > >> > Martijn
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > > Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
> > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
