Hi Nick (and other mentors), meanwhile the code maintainer replied Dave and myself offlist. He asked, what detailed changes we demand from him. He is willing to cooperate ;)
So, what do we desire in detail? Best regards, Svante Am 26.10.2013 13:04, schrieb Florian Hopf: > 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? >
