You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@taverna.apache.org by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> on 2018/01/04 15:45:14 UTC
Re: Server License status
Found Donal's old license analysis, which provided nice links. (See
quoted email below)
Ian already looked at the W3C Software License which is straight forward as
we've done that already in Taverna Language, and persistence.xsd I found we can
remove. SO that leaves "ur.xsd" for the OGF Usage Records.
http://schemas.ogf.org/urf/2003/09/ contains the schema
for the namespace http://schema.ogf.org/urf/2003/09/urf
(although for some reason with a filename typo of "url.xml" rather than
"urf.xml") - so I used this. I didn't find any differences beyond
indentation from what we had as "ur.xsd" in git - it's still corresponding to
GFD.98 rather than GFD.204 though.
However its license *) is not permitting changes to "The Document" (aka
the XSD?) which means including this file directly in git would not be
open source, and also would violate
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
It would in theory be acceptable to use these by download only, but that
means we have to rely on the typo-ed
http://schemas.ogf.org/urf/2003/09/url.xml to keep working whenever
someone builds taverna-server.
As "derivative works that assist in its implementation" are permitted "without
restriction of any kind" my proposal is simply to include the XJC-generated
JAXB beans as Java source code.
See https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-server/tree/master/taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/server/usagerecord/xml/urf
That means our NOTICE can then be like this:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-server/blob/master/taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE#L12
Later copyright notices as in GFD.204 uses better phrasing like "The published
OGF document from which such works are derived" - which would avoid confusion
from "This document". Not sure why GFD.204's XSD is not on the web, but I
guess we could also try to copy that out from the PDF.
*)
Usage Record Working Group XML Schema definition (GFD.98)
Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (2006-2007). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself
may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
or references to the OGF or other organizations, except as needed for
the purpose of developing Grid Recommendations in which case the
procedures for copyrights defined in the OGF Document process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the OGF or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "As
Is" basis and the OGF disclaims all warranties, express or implied,
including but not limited to any warranty that the use of the
information herein will not infringe any rights or any implied
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:38:48 +0100, "Donal K. Fellows" <do...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> I've been going through fixing most of the remaining issues with
> licenses in the Server. This is highlighting the remaining known issues.
> There might also be some other bits of images that aren't in this
> analysis because RAT pegs them as binary.
>
> SCHEMAS
> -------
>
> There are three externally-defined schemas present in the tree; the
> licenses on these are NOT Apache:
>
> .../taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/xsd/ur.xsd
> .../taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/xsd/xmlds.xsd
> .../taverna-server-webapp/src/misc/xsd/persistence_1_0.xsd
>
> I suspect that the persistence schema isn't required. I can't find
> whether it is referred to from any other code; it might be a hold-over
> from a period when the schema was difficult to access online.
>
> The UR schema is defined by the Open Grid Forum and will be under their
> license. It's “available” online, but only as PDF the last time I looked
> (!) so it is copied here in order to make it machine-processable. The
> PDF is at https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.98.pdf
> There is a new version at https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.204.pdf
> which we might consider upgrading to; that might even have an associated
> online schema.
>
> The XMLDS schema supports the UR schema, and is defined by the W3C. The
> spec it refers to is https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/ and is copied
> here because of the W3C tarpit.
>
> SUPPORT LIBRARIES
> -----------------
>
> Jquery. It's useful but awful. It's present in the code. It's quite
> possible that it will be best to switch these to an online version
> instead; I don't do very much with JS so I can't really comment all that
> much.
>
> .../taverna-server-webapp/src/main/resources/static/jquery-1.8.0.min.js
>
> .../taverna-server-webapp/src/main/resources/static/jquery-ui-1.8.23.custom.css
>
> .../taverna-server-webapp/src/main/resources/static/jquery-ui-1.8.23.custom.min.js
>
> It's also currently EXCLUDED from analysis by RAT because it makes the
:1
> tool have problems (due to the very long lines).
>
> Donal.
Usage Records Format 2.0
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 15:45:14 +0000, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> Later copyright notices as in GFD.204 uses better phrasing like "The published
> OGF document from which such works are derived" - which would avoid confusion
> from "This document". Not sure why GFD.204's XSD is not on the web, but I
> guess we could also try to copy that out from the PDF.
I added the GDF.204 JAXB bindings as well as it was pretty much the same
story and then the licensing is sorted for later updates. Plus-side - no
xmldsig dependency there. :)
As it's in a new namespace I've added it sidecar as 'urf2' - so it
should not cause any damage:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-server/tree/master/taverna-server-usagerecord/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/server/usagerecord/xml/urf2
urf2 is a bit different in the structure as it is a bit simplified
XML-wise, but also supports more updated info like cloud resources.
I've not gone ahead to modify the convenience JobUsageRecord or the
various places in taverna-server-webapp they are generated/exposed -
that's something we can have a look at after this 3.1 release.
Tracked as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-1026
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
The University of Manchester
http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: Server License status
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 00:34:24 +0000, "Donal K. Fellows" <do...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> word processor things). If there's an updated version (GFD.204?) that
> maps to a schema that is a schema-correct document itself, you could try
> updating to point at that. Indeed, that would be preferable *even
Yes, I had a look at that (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-1026) - although that
seems to imply a bit more changes elsewhere - although I think we can do
most of the fixes within the JobUs.
Compare the old
http://taverna.staging.apache.org/javadoc/taverna-server/org/apache/taverna/server/usagerecord/xml/urf/package-summary.html
against the new
http://taverna.staging.apache.org/javadoc/taverna-server/org/apache/taverna/server/usagerecord/xml/urf2/package-summary.html
> > Not sure why GFD.204's XSD is not on the web, but I
> > guess we could also try to copy that out from the PDF.
> If you do copy out of it, really do check that the resulting schema
> document is valid in itself. ;-)
Luckily it was 100% valid according to both Eclipse's XSD editor
and JAXB XJC :)
> Also ping the OGF guys to ask them if there's a particular reason the
> schema isn't direct downloadable. That would seem like an odd omission
> to make, and the schema link should be discoverable. The link that is
> presented (non-normatively, i.e., in an example only) within GFD.204 is
> http://schema.ogf.org/urf/2013/04/urf but that is non-resolvable. It all
> looks like a technical slip-up on the OGF's part.
Good point.
I've emailed https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
and operations@ogf.org
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
The University of Manchester
http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: Server License status
Posted by "Donal K. Fellows" <do...@manchester.ac.uk>.
On 04/01/2018 15:45, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> Found Donal's old license analysis, which provided nice links. (See
> quoted email below)
>
> Ian already looked at the W3C Software License which is straight forward as
> we've done that already in Taverna Language, and persistence.xsd I found we can
> remove. SO that leaves "ur.xsd" for the OGF Usage Records.
That's in because we automatically generate code from the schema, and
the version available online is not well-formed (because it is a
cut-n-paste job from a Word document, and so includes a bunch of dumb
word processor things). If there's an updated version (GFD.204?) that
maps to a schema that is a schema-correct document itself, you could try
updating to point at that. Indeed, that would be preferable *even
without* the legal requirements. But there's an absolute technical
requirement for there to be a schema at all. (We could also just
replicate the bits we need in a code-first style, but it really isn't
the business of Taverna to be publishing general usage schemas if we can
help it.)
Unfortunately, I've not been in a position to be chasing down this stuff
for the past couple of years.
> Not sure why GFD.204's XSD is not on the web, but I
> guess we could also try to copy that out from the PDF.
If you do copy out of it, really do check that the resulting schema
document is valid in itself. ;-)
Also ping the OGF guys to ask them if there's a particular reason the
schema isn't direct downloadable. That would seem like an odd omission
to make, and the schema link should be discoverable. The link that is
presented (non-normatively, i.e., in an example only) within GFD.204 is
http://schema.ogf.org/urf/2013/04/urf but that is non-resolvable. It all
looks like a technical slip-up on the OGF's part.
Donal.