+ 1 for handling it the proposed way. I just checked the legal page of ASF [1] and figured that MIT license is basically compatible with ASF 2.0 [2].
However the statement regarding MIT license is not 100% clear, since it is related to Ruby Gems and ending with the following statement: “... other licenses (such as MIT) may also be OK, depending on the license." Therefore I would propose the following: a) First, hand over the contribution on camel-extra b) Get some clarification on licensing c) If there is no licensing issue, we’ll handle it as we’ve done in the past and migrate the component to ASF [3]. Best, Christoph [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#ruby-license [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-7090 On 07 Mar 2014, at 12:58, Pontus Ullgren <[email protected]> wrote: > In the the dropbox core API zip file there is a License.txt > > https://www.dropbox.com/developers/downloads/sdks/core/java/dropbox-java-sdk-1.7.6.zip > --- > Copyright (c) 2013 Dropbox Inc., http://www.dropbox.com/ > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining > a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the > "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND > NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE > LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION > OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION > WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > -- > > Why would this license stop the camel-dropbox component from beeing > released under the Apache License ? > To me the dropbox API license seems pretty permissive. > > // Pontus > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Henryk Konsek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What I can not answer is, if the dropbox license and terms of conditions >>> meet the general ASF requirements or not. >> >> Apparently not. >> >>> If it is not possible to contribute the component to the ASF branch, I would >>> vote for a contribution to camel-extra. >> >> I asked to author of the DropBox pull request if he would like to >> contribute the project to Camel Extra. >> >> Cheers. >> >> -- >> Henryk Konsek >> http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
