I am not a legal expert. I just wanted to clarify the request.
The Apache product would like to depend on a 3rd party library. Does it also wish to distribute the library, e.g. as part of a binary distribution? I ask this because the rules are stricter for distribution. On 1 November 2013 13:28, Svante Schubert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello legal experts, > > we would like to use a 3rd party library 'java-rdfa' and reference the > download of the binaries via Maven. > > The maintainer is willing to assist us, if we tell him explicitly what > has to be changed, but there is still some confusion about it. > > Could give us some insights, please! > > Some details about the problems in the mail below. > > Thanks in advance, > 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? >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
