Agree, … just one more thing, can we enforce someone using the camel-dropbox component to adhere to the Dropbox API Terms and Conditions [1]?
If so, I would like to vote for a direct inclusion to the ASF branch. Best, Christoph [1] https://www.dropbox.com/developers/reference/tos On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:38, Christian Müller <[email protected]> wrote: > MIT/X11 licensed software can be included. Have a look at [1]. > > [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories > > Best, > Christian > ----------------- > > Software Integration Specialist > > Apache Member > V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer > Apache Incubator PMC Member > > https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642 > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Christoph Emmersberger > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> + 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
