On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Svante Schubert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
Sorry, I've been rare on this list due to other commitments. I think the recommended approach is like this: 1) If we're taking over a component and becoming the new maintainer of it, then we'd want a Software Grant Agreement (SGA) from the current owner. or 2) If we're including a 3rd party module in our release as a dependency, but we're not taking it over, then we want some clear indication that it is using a category-a license (for source dependencies) or category-b (for binary dependencies). We're talking about case 2, right? If so the simplest thing would be for the author to clearly state the license, maybe via a LICENSE or README file in the root of their JAR. The 3-clause BSD does not have the advertising clause. But that is not the one linked to on the ASF page [1]. They link to the 2-clause version. The one we know is not permitted is the 4-clause version. But it is not clear what the status of the 3-clause version. And don't even ask me about the Santa Clause version. The right place to get clarification on this would be the legal-discuss mailing list: [email protected] [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a Regards, -Rob > 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? >> >
