On 11/7/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/7/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses > but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the > LICENSE file. > > apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing > redistributable binary components which are not open source but does > not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult > corner case. much better to create clean room implementations. So would you recommend OFBiz copy the XSD and relicense it to ASL 2.0?
definitely not: this is very wrong. in particular: * there is no right to modify so adding a license header would be a copyright violation * existing copyright and license headers must be retained a clean room implementation would mean starting from the specification without reference t o the DTD ideally by people who had no knowledge of the DTD but see comments by david and david later in this thread. i'm happy that this is know resolved and hope that OfBiz may contact the consortium and ask about offering under a different license in future. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
