Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 11:02 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We (Apache JAMES project) are developing an SPF implementation in java >> (jSPF) [1]. >> >> Part of our test suite works by parsing 2 YAML files [2][3] provided as >> part of the OpenSPF group [4] TestSuite [5] >> >> Currently we wrote the java tests to simply "silently pass" if the 2 >> yaml files are not there and we place them only in our local checkout, >> but we would like to understand if we are allowed to place them in our >> svn repository and to redistribute them in the sources tar.gz. >> >> The 2 files [2][3] have no specific license header. >> The OpenSPF group website [4] tells "Unless noted otherwise, all content >> on this website is dual-licensed under the GNU GPL v2 and the Creative >> Commons CC BY-SA 2.5." >> >> So the first question is: are we allowed to redistribute unmodified yaml >> files originally licensed under the "Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.5"? Do >> we just need the usual NOTICE reference and LICENSE pointer? > > from what i can tell, Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.5 is a reciprocal > license. AIUI this would mean that it shouldn't be distributed as part > of an apache release. > > (hopefully people will jump in with corrections if this is incorrect)
Norman Maurer already tested this topic in past January in legal-discuss: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200701.mbox/<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unfortunately it had no replies. Here is the last interesting email we found about this topic: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cliff said: ------- Questionable -- needs a closer look (would probably get same treatment as OSL): Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike ------- BTW I think that for the jSPF specific issue we can rely on the alternative PSFL solution and even better convince the openspf group to release the next test suite version under a BSD license. >> Second option: an spf-devel member reported that the yaml files have >> been developed as part of pyspf [6] and are released under the Python >> Software Foundation License [7]. The PSFL is a BSD derived license (in >> principle) but contains a lot of sentences and is not listed in the ASF >> license guidelines [8]. >> >> WDYT? > > the python license looks BSDish to me. opinions? At the moment we altered jSPF source tree to include and reference the PSFL license for the 2 involved files. IANAL, but it looks BSDish to me too. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
