Re: OSOA SCA artifact license

[ant elder <an...@apache.org>]

On 3/1/07, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 28 February 2007 23:07, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > In Tuscany we are implementing the SCA specifications defined here:
> >     http://www.osoa.org
> >
> > and the group is now starting to make available runtime artifacts
> > such as Java interface files and XSD definitions under the following
> > license:
> >    http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0/license.txt
> >
> > Is this a third party license that would allow us to include Java
> > binaries and XSD files in an Apache distribution? Are there any
> > issues around the clause relating to a "compliant implementation"
> > given the spec group has not defined compliance criteria at this time?
>
> This sounds odd, since I assume the Java Interface files are needed in
> clients
> as well, and they are not "Compliant Implementation" at all.
>
> IANAL, but I think the intent was to allow free distribution of the
> material
> but safe-guarding from forks. Perhaps a clarification from OSOA is in
> place,
> why not a standard license were chosen in the first place.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas


I'd like to bring this up again as there wasn't much conclusion reached last
time.

Would the OSOA license at http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0/license.txt be
considered a Category A license as described at
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html?

There has been a little related discussion at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg17442.html

   ...ant