Since Common Workflow code appears to be under ALv2, it might be worth
contacting that community and asking them to re-license the logo under
ALv2 as well and explain how the current logo licensing makes ALv2
consumption more difficult if they want their logo included in downstream
releases.
My 2
Indeed, I find it wholly unthinkable that we'd include any LGPL bits in
an Apache product release, even if it's an ambiguous choice of licenses.
There is no ambiguity in what types of licenses are allowed in Apache
releases.
The only way to do this (IMO, I'm not VP, Legal) is to make clear that
Hi,
I would recommend that we only license that under CC-SA, but you might want
to point out that the media files are also available under LGPL3. The
downstream user can re-apply (or swap with) the LGPL3 if they want to, as
those media files are unmodified and we lay no additional claims.
Hi,
Our GSOC student wants to include a PNG for a CWL logo (for
representing CWL services within Apache Taverna), but the original
logo is dual-licensed:
>From https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/blob/master/LICENSE.md
> The Common Workflow Language Logos are (C) Copyright 2016 the
