You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> on 2007/06/24 06:30:01 UTC
Including ICU modules with Apache projects
We would like to include some ICU modules (http://www.icu-project.org/)
in an upcoming release of the C++ version of Apache UIMA, in order to
support Unicode (ICU = International Components for Unicode).
The license for this,
http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html,
resembles the X.Net license that is on Cliff's
(http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
<http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html>) "Category A". But it
is not *exactly* the same license.
The differences are the following:
X.Net includes (explicitly) permissions to sublicense, but this is
missing as an *explicit* permission in the ICU version.
X.Net requires the copyright and permission notice to appear in copies
of the software, while the ICU requires the
copyright and permission notice to appear in copies of both the
*documentation* as well as the software.
The disclaimer (i.e. "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", etc.) in ICU
has an additional clause following
"INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, which changes
"NONINFRINGEMENT. " to
"NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS."
X.Net says
"IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE" ... while
the ICU says
"IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR HOLDERS INCLUDED IN THIS
NOTICE BE LIABLE".
X.Net includes a "This agreement shall be governed..." while the ICU
license has no such clause.
Finally, the ICU license includes a prohibition against using the name
of the copyright holder in advertising, marketing, etc.
without prior permission from the copyright holder; the X.Net has no
such restriction.
Given these differences, I'm not sure I can rely on Cliff's category "A"
*OK* for X.Net as being OK for the ICU license -
so I'd like to get a definitive reading on whether it is OK to include
the ICU modules in Apache distributions.
-Marshall Schor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Including ICU modules with Apache projects
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@apache.org>.
Hi Marshall,
Thanks for doing the diff -- that made it easier to review. None of
those differences would be a problem to include within an Apache
distribution. I also looked at the entire license, and it definitely
looks fine.
BTW, we now have a Legal Affairs Committee* that is chaired by the
Legal Affairs VP (still me for just a little longer). If this was
close to a borderline question, I would ensure I had the consensus of
the committee, but this is a pretty straightforward case. So, I feel
comfortable giving you the green light without that step.
Cliff
*The Legal Affairs Committee includes Robert Burrell Donkin, Dims,
Justin Erenkrantz, Garrett Rooney, Geir Magnusson, Jim Jagielski, Noel
J. Bergman, Roy Fielding, William Rowe, and me.
On 6/23/07, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> We would like to include some ICU modules (http://www.icu-project.org/)
> in an upcoming release of the C++ version of Apache UIMA, in order to
> support Unicode (ICU = International Components for Unicode).
>
> The license for this,
> http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html,
> resembles the X.Net license that is on Cliff's
> (http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html>) "Category A". But it
> is not *exactly* the same license.
>
> The differences are the following:
>
> X.Net includes (explicitly) permissions to sublicense, but this is
> missing as an *explicit* permission in the ICU version.
>
> X.Net requires the copyright and permission notice to appear in copies
> of the software, while the ICU requires the
> copyright and permission notice to appear in copies of both the
> *documentation* as well as the software.
>
> The disclaimer (i.e. "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", etc.) in ICU
> has an additional clause following
> "INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, which changes
> "NONINFRINGEMENT. " to
> "NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS."
>
> X.Net says
> "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE" ... while
> the ICU says
> "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR HOLDERS INCLUDED IN THIS
> NOTICE BE LIABLE".
>
> X.Net includes a "This agreement shall be governed..." while the ICU
> license has no such clause.
>
> Finally, the ICU license includes a prohibition against using the name
> of the copyright holder in advertising, marketing, etc.
> without prior permission from the copyright holder; the X.Net has no
> such restriction.
>
> Given these differences, I'm not sure I can rely on Cliff's category "A"
> *OK* for X.Net as being OK for the ICU license -
> so I'd like to get a definitive reading on whether it is OK to include
> the ICU modules in Apache distributions.
>
> -Marshall Schor
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org