[jira] [Created] (LEGAL-453) Can EPLv1.0 source be included in test code?

["Sean Owen (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

Sean Owen created LEGAL-453:
-------------------------------

             Summary: Can EPLv1.0 source be included in test code?
                 Key: LEGAL-453
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-453
             Project: Legal Discuss
          Issue Type: Question
            Reporter: Sean Owen


In the Spark project, we need to include 2 files from Jetty in the _test_ code of Spark only. Jetty is EPLv1.0: https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/blob/jetty-9.4.x/LICENSE This is a 'weak copyleft' license per https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#weak-copyleft-licenses

The guidance there suggests: "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted."

This is certainly a small amount, unmodified, and can't (won't) be changed given its purpose. It's not used at all by Spark at runtime, being test code. However this example suggests it's getting at things like including a DTD, not source code.

The motivation seems to be to avoid having users create a derivative work of EPLv1.0 code. This wouldn't arise for downstream users that use or modify Spark itself. I can envision a distribution redistributing Spark's test code, but not deriving a work from these tests; they're not reusable as artifacts as they can only really test Spark.

I think including the 2 files falls within the spirit of what's allowed here and why, but wanted to ask if there are nuances I'm missing.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org