You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Raymond Augé (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2017/11/08 18:36:00 UTC
[jira] [Updated] (LEGAL-342) Repackaging non-apache artifacts and
the licensing consequences
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Raymond Augé updated LEGAL-342:
-------------------------------
Description:
From an Apache project, I would like to re-package an artifact who's license/code/sources did not originate from Apache but I want to ensure I don't infringe the original's license.
This brings me to question the legitimacy of the process followed by some Apache projects to repackage similar artifacts.
Without wanting to pick on anyone an example will be helpful [1]. (Note that I've discovered several such occurrences.)
The artifact who's pom I referenced [1] seems to have been produced by repackaging a non-Apache licensed source artifact (actually licensed as CDDL+GPL-1.1). (The resulting artifact does not seem to refer to the original license.)
I'm tempted to do something similar but would like to know if there any risk with this approach? Has the original license been infringed?
[1] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/specs/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1/2.9.0/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1-2.9.0.pom
was:
I would like to re-package an artifact who's license/code/sources did not originate from Apache but I want to ensure I don't infringe the original's license.
This brings me to question the legitimacy of the process followed by some Apache projects to repackage similar artifacts.
Without wanting to pick on anyone an example will be helpful [1]. (Note that I've discovered several such occurrences.)
The artifact who's pom I referenced [1] seems to have been produced by repackaging a non-Apache licensed source artifact (actually licensed as CDDL+GPL-1.1). (The resulting artifact does not seem to refer to the original license.)
I'm tempted to do something similar but would like to know if there any risk with this approach? Has the original license been infringed?
[1] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/specs/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1/2.9.0/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1-2.9.0.pom
> Repackaging non-apache artifacts and the licensing consequences
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-342
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-342
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Raymond Augé
>
> From an Apache project, I would like to re-package an artifact who's license/code/sources did not originate from Apache but I want to ensure I don't infringe the original's license.
> This brings me to question the legitimacy of the process followed by some Apache projects to repackage similar artifacts.
> Without wanting to pick on anyone an example will be helpful [1]. (Note that I've discovered several such occurrences.)
> The artifact who's pom I referenced [1] seems to have been produced by repackaging a non-Apache licensed source artifact (actually licensed as CDDL+GPL-1.1). (The resulting artifact does not seem to refer to the original license.)
> I'm tempted to do something similar but would like to know if there any risk with this approach? Has the original license been infringed?
> [1] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/specs/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1/2.9.0/org.apache.servicemix.specs.jsr339-api-2.0.1-2.9.0.pom
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org