You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Meghna Baijal <me...@gmail.com> on 2018/04/16 15:39:10 UTC
Apache MXNet (incubating): A Question about including a file with
CC-BY-2.5 License
Hello Everyone,
I am a contributor to the Apache MXNet (incubating) Project. I have been
working on some license fixes for the project and have a question about the
license for one file that comes from a 3rd party dependency.
This file [1] is licensed under a CC-BY-2.5 and there was a suggestion
during the MXNet 1.1 release vote to remove it from the released source.
However, this file is a part of MXNet's submodule (Googletest) and can’t
simply be removed from Github. This would need modification to the
Googletest submodule which is not possible.
Can you please recommend how I can handle this licensing issue?
[1] *Path to file in mxnet -*
https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c02433cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
Thanks you,
Meghna Baijal
Re: Apache MXNet (incubating): A Question about including a file with
CC-BY-2.5 License
Posted by Hen <ba...@apache.org>.
All of which is garbage from me because I had misremembered the dev@ thread
and gotten focused on CC-BY-SA :)
*hangs head in shame*
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Hen <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not noticing a reply, so thought I'd offer my thoughts.
>
> We currently say this on CC-BY-SA:
>
> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/>, Creative Commons
> Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> and Creative Commons
> Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/> licenses may be included
> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed
> work, please contact the Legal PMC."
>
> Where media is intended to cover images, audio and video. We definitely
> did not want this to cover software under CC-BY-SA (which is a bad idea in
> general), but I don't recall documentation being defined one way or the
> other.
>
> CC-BY-SA licensing for documentation is very common, so having a position
> on documentation makes sense.
>
> We have three concerns imo:
>
> 1) We don't want CC-BY-SA licensing to affect the licensing of our project.
> 2) We don't want substantial changes we make to the CC-BY-SA licensing to
> mean we're in the business of producing non-Apache 2.0 licensed works.
> 3) We'd rather not have WIPO-treaty/DRM clauses in our projects.
>
> In general I think we should continue to avoid including CC-BY-SA content
> for the three reasons above. Yes our position on CC-BY-SA means we're
> already affected by #3, but no reason to increase that.
>
> This example (a .md file in a git-auto-copied 3p dependency) doesn't
> expose us on #2, and #1 seems pretty safe as the author of the .md file
> (the dependency) would have to first argue that their project is CC-BY-SA
> licensed because of the .md file.
>
> So I can see being okay with this, but I also feel that copying
> dependencies into a codebase is an unusual behaviour for our projects and I
> wonder if that really needs to happen.
>
> Interested in what others think.
>
> Hen
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> I am a contributor to the Apache MXNet (incubating) Project. I have been
>> working on some license fixes for the project and have a question about the
>> license for one file that comes from a 3rd party dependency.
>>
>>
>> This file [1] is licensed under a CC-BY-2.5 and there was a suggestion
>> during the MXNet 1.1 release vote to remove it from the released source.
>>
>>
>> However, this file is a part of MXNet's submodule (Googletest) and can’t
>> simply be removed from Github. This would need modification to the
>> Googletest submodule which is not possible.
>>
>>
>> Can you please recommend how I can handle this licensing issue?
>>
>>
>> [1] *Path to file in mxnet -* https://github.com/google/go
>> ogletest/blob/ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c02433cccde7780/googl
>> emock/docs/DevGuide.md
>>
>>
>> Thanks you,
>>
>> Meghna Baijal
>>
>
>
Re: Apache MXNet (incubating): A Question about including a file with
CC-BY-2.5 License
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Also note that CC-BY is in the Category B list [1] and that means CC-BY licensed content can only be included in binary form.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache MXNet (incubating): A Question about including a file with
CC-BY-2.5 License
Posted by Hen <ba...@apache.org>.
Not noticing a reply, so thought I'd offer my thoughts.
We currently say this on CC-BY-SA:
"Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/>, Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/> licenses may be included
in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed
work, please contact the Legal PMC."
Where media is intended to cover images, audio and video. We definitely did
not want this to cover software under CC-BY-SA (which is a bad idea in
general), but I don't recall documentation being defined one way or the
other.
CC-BY-SA licensing for documentation is very common, so having a position
on documentation makes sense.
We have three concerns imo:
1) We don't want CC-BY-SA licensing to affect the licensing of our project.
2) We don't want substantial changes we make to the CC-BY-SA licensing to
mean we're in the business of producing non-Apache 2.0 licensed works.
3) We'd rather not have WIPO-treaty/DRM clauses in our projects.
In general I think we should continue to avoid including CC-BY-SA content
for the three reasons above. Yes our position on CC-BY-SA means we're
already affected by #3, but no reason to increase that.
This example (a .md file in a git-auto-copied 3p dependency) doesn't expose
us on #2, and #1 seems pretty safe as the author of the .md file (the
dependency) would have to first argue that their project is CC-BY-SA
licensed because of the .md file.
So I can see being okay with this, but I also feel that copying
dependencies into a codebase is an unusual behaviour for our projects and I
wonder if that really needs to happen.
Interested in what others think.
Hen
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Meghna Baijal <me...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am a contributor to the Apache MXNet (incubating) Project. I have been
> working on some license fixes for the project and have a question about the
> license for one file that comes from a 3rd party dependency.
>
>
> This file [1] is licensed under a CC-BY-2.5 and there was a suggestion
> during the MXNet 1.1 release vote to remove it from the released source.
>
>
> However, this file is a part of MXNet's submodule (Googletest) and can’t
> simply be removed from Github. This would need modification to the
> Googletest submodule which is not possible.
>
>
> Can you please recommend how I can handle this licensing issue?
>
>
> [1] *Path to file in mxnet -* https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/
> ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c02433cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
>
>
> Thanks you,
>
> Meghna Baijal
>