On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:49 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Request is to categorize the BSD 3-clause license. What we'll do after will depend on that. We've discussed distributing a dependencies JAR for the convenience of developers who do not use Maven. That JAR would roll up the binary classes of our dependencies. For that, category-a or category-b should be fine. -Rob > > 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] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
