Hi,
On 14.10.2013 13:30, Svante Schubert wrote:
So regarding the RDFa Parser, there is a BSD license in the pom.xml, but
there is no correct license header in the sources and I have contacted
the developer with Dave on CC.
If there is no response, I assume from your wording that the pom.xml is
a sufficient proof of license for us (Apache), right?
This is quite confusing. The pom in the official repo claims that it is
BSD licensed:
http://www.rootdev.net/maven/repo/net/rootdev/java-rdfa/0.4/java-rdfa-0.4.pom
The license that is referenced from the pom doesn't explicitly say it's
BSD: https://github.com/shellac/java-rdfa/wiki/licence but it seems to
be the same words as BSD-3: http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
The same license is also included in the source tree and we would have
at least add this to our notice file I guess:
https://github.com/shellac/java-rdfa/blob/master/COPYING
So if I understood Nick correctly this would be enough to make sure it
is indeed licensed under BSD.
However, according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html only BSD-2
(without advertising clause) seems to be considered equal to Apache
License. http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html also links to the BSD-2
license.
Honestly, I have no idea if it is ok or not. Nick, Dave do you have any
idea who could clarify if it's ok to use BSD-3?
--
Florian Hopf
Freelance Software Developer
http://blog.florian-hopf.de
