This question relates to some code in a commons sandbox component. I would have asked this question on licensing@, but I think that is a members-only list.
Here's the hypothetical, but I'd like to get some official guidance from the PMC. Assume that there is a piece of C code covered by the Perl Artistic License: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html that implements an algorithm like DoubleMetaphone. Now, imagine that a contributor submits a class that is a direct port of this code to Java. The port contains lines of code that are strikingly similar to the original, the class seems to be a verbatim copy of the original making exceptions for the differences between Java and C. Here's the CPAN module: http://search.cpan.org/author/MAURICE/Text-DoubleMetaphone-0.05/DoubleMetaph one.pm Here's the Codec class: http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/codec/clover/org/apache/commons/co dec/language/DoubleMetaphone.html I discovered the deriviative nature of the work after the class had been added to the CVS repository, and subsequently had some discussions which led me to belive that the Perl Artistic was compatible with the Apache license. Section 3 of the PAL seems relevant, but I am not the individual to be making legal judgement calls on behalf of the ASF. Anybody? Please let me know if I need to remove this from CVS ASAP. <PS> As a parting shot, I think that porting C code directly to Java is simply a *bad idea*. The implementation in question has a method that is 800+ lines - regardless of the direction, this class needs to be refactored, reimplemented. If PAL is compatible, we'll start from this implementation as a baseline; if PAL is not compatible, we'll start from scratch. I'm neutral. </PS> -------- Tim O'Brien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
