You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> on 2007/03/01 08:02:15 UTC
Re: OSOA SCA artifact license
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: OSOA SCA artifact license
Posted by 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