You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM> on 2008/02/13 23:45:13 UTC
junit license
I just downloaded junit 4.4. It comes with a BSD license. I notice that
we don't check junit.jar into our codeline however. Is the BSD license
incompatible with Apache 2.0? I am not a lawyer, but it seems that we
would satisfy the conditions of the junit license if we included a
copyright notice and disclaimer in our NOTICE file.
Other opinions?
Thanks,
-Rick
Re: junit license
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I just downloaded junit 4.4. It comes with a BSD license. I notice that
> we don't check junit.jar into our codeline however. Is the BSD license
> incompatible with Apache 2.0? I am not a lawyer, but it seems that we
> would satisfy the conditions of the junit license if we included a
> copyright notice and disclaimer in our NOTICE file.
The project web-site says CPL.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/junit/
Could the BSD licence be for some BSD code included by junit?
Dan.
Re: junit license
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
...
> Well, well. As it so happens, just last month there was a discussion
> of this on legal-discuss. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6].
>
>
...
> So, while not a part of the official policy on the matter, the
> not-so-unofficial policy is that if you check it into Subversion,
> follow the NOTICE requirements as if it were a release, since
> Subversion is publication (from [2]) while not necessarily
> distribution.
>
> The fact that other projects aren't following this exactly is no
> excuse for Derby not to be diligent in light of the discussion above.
> So, if you want to check junit.jar in to the repository, it should be
> ok. Just be sure to follow the requirements in the policy linked
> above, as junit.jar is a Class B licensed artifact according to that
> policy. Once that has been followed, it should also be acceptable for
> us to include it in an official release, since if the policy has been
> followed to the letter, all necessary legal requirements should be
> satisfied.
>
> Crossing my fingers I didn't mess up the citations, and also I'm not a
> lawyer, etc., etc.,
> andrew
>
>
Thanks for doing the research on this, Andrew, and I agree. I've
watched the debates over the last couple years over whether the code in
svn constitutes a release (not surprisingly, there are diverse
opinions). It's better to provide info in the NOTICE where it may not be
strictly required (or may not seem to be), than to miss including info
that turns out to be required.
-jean
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3cE9D17D5F-3A68-4968-AB26-49586D558B14@gbiv.com%3e
>
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c5D96BBC0-F827-4029-90A2-D68B3A25F1BE@gbiv.com%3e
>
> [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478AA88A.5010502@rowe-clan.net%3e
>
> [4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478D0025.80806@rowe-clan.net%3e
>
> [5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478CFB06.2080103@apache.org%3e
>
> [6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478AA233.2090605@rowe-clan.net%3e
>
Re: junit license
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not sure that's correct, the proposed policy indicates an entry in the
> > NOTICE file is required.
> >
> > </snip>
>
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html
>
> Both the previous version of the policy and this one fail to address
> whether access via Subversion to a library licensed under a
> non-authorized license (i.e. anything besides a class A license in the
> policy linked above) is distribution and thus requires addition of
> notice to the NOTICES file. This is an important question, one worth
> getting an definitive answer for, but one which I currently don't have
> the time to chase down. Such libraries are already available via
> Apache's Subversion server without such notice, demonstrated by the
> links in my previous mail.
Well, well. As it so happens, just last month there was a discussion
of this on legal-discuss. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6].
>From [1]:
"It needs to be in subversion when a third-party something that
requires such a notice is also within subversion."
>From [2]:
"Our subversion is published within our own development groups and
made accessible to third-parties via svn externals.
That publication (even without a formal release) is still under the
terms of our license, and because the ASF requires a couple lines
in NOTICE for all of our projects, the LICENSE and NOTICE files must
be in subversion (typically at the level under trunk). The contents
are based on the source code within that tree."
>From [3]:
"It is sufficient to assume that people understand hierarchies..."
>From [4]:
"Especially if the project has a link on their developer's "how to
obtain the latest sources from subversion" info page. There you have
documented how to obtain these *unreleased* sources, and the license
and providence (notice) needs to be especially clear about what they've
checked out or exported."
>From [5]:
"But, if someone were to argue that svn was a distribution, we'd like to
be able to respond, as a backup, that, even if someone mistakenly
thought that svn was intended as a distribution, they still got a
LICENSE and NOTICE file and should still respect them."
And, well pretty much the whole of [6], but for now:
"Contrawise, it's exactly the policy and a good statement of why it
exists; and as you point out it's worth adding to a document somewhere."
So, while not a part of the official policy on the matter, the
not-so-unofficial policy is that if you check it into Subversion,
follow the NOTICE requirements as if it were a release, since
Subversion is publication (from [2]) while not necessarily
distribution.
The fact that other projects aren't following this exactly is no
excuse for Derby not to be diligent in light of the discussion above.
So, if you want to check junit.jar in to the repository, it should be
ok. Just be sure to follow the requirements in the policy linked
above, as junit.jar is a Class B licensed artifact according to that
policy. Once that has been followed, it should also be acceptable for
us to include it in an official release, since if the policy has been
followed to the letter, all necessary legal requirements should be
satisfied.
Crossing my fingers I didn't mess up the citations, and also I'm not a
lawyer, etc., etc.,
andrew
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3cE9D17D5F-3A68-4968-AB26-49586D558B14@gbiv.com%3e
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c5D96BBC0-F827-4029-90A2-D68B3A25F1BE@gbiv.com%3e
[3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478AA88A.5010502@rowe-clan.net%3e
[4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478D0025.80806@rowe-clan.net%3e
[5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478CFB06.2080103@apache.org%3e
[6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3c478AA233.2090605@rowe-clan.net%3e
Re: junit license
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> If it's checked into svn then by definition it is in our release
> artifacts since our source release is a snapshot of the source tree.
Libraries used only by Derby developers during development are already
excluded from official distributions. This would be the first instance
where the source distribution would exclude something that would be in
Apache's Subversion repository, so we should definitely be careful
here.
> Not sure that's correct, the proposed policy indicates an entry in the
> NOTICE file is required.
>
> </snip>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html
Both the previous version of the policy and this one fail to address
whether access via Subversion to a library licensed under a
non-authorized license (i.e. anything besides a class A license in the
policy linked above) is distribution and thus requires addition of
notice to the NOTICES file. This is an important question, one worth
getting an definitive answer for, but one which I currently don't have
the time to chase down. Such libraries are already available via
Apache's Subversion server without such notice, demonstrated by the
links in my previous mail.
I would suggest that anyone sincerely interested in the issue take it
up on legal-discuss@apache and refrain from checking anything into the
repository until they get a definitive answer.
regards,
andrew
Re: junit license
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> There is a proposed apache policy on 3rd party licences at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> (there may be a newer version)
Current version is (still proposed):
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html
Sam Ruby is now the Apache V.P., Legal Affairs.
Dan.
Re: junit license
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2008 2:45 PM, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
>> I just downloaded junit 4.4. It comes with a BSD license. I notice that
>> we don't check junit.jar into our codeline however. Is the BSD license
>> incompatible with Apache 2.0? I am not a lawyer, but it seems that we
>> would satisfy the conditions of the junit license if we included a
>> copyright notice and disclaimer in our NOTICE file.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>
> If we don't redistribute it in any of our release artifacts,
If it's checked into svn then be definition it is in our release
artifacts since our source release is a snapshot of the source tree.
> I don't
> believe there's a need to add any notice. There are plenty of examples
> of other projects that have checked junit.jar into the repository, and
> do not give notice in their NOTICES file. See, e.g.:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xerces/java/trunk/tools/
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lenya/trunk/lib/
Not sure that's correct, the proposed policy indicates an entry in the
NOTICE file is required.
> and notice in Xerces's case that they include the license along the jar.
There is a proposed apache policy on 3rd party licences at:
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
(there may be a newer version)
Dan.
Re: junit license
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 13, 2008 2:45 PM, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
> I just downloaded junit 4.4. It comes with a BSD license. I notice that
> we don't check junit.jar into our codeline however. Is the BSD license
> incompatible with Apache 2.0? I am not a lawyer, but it seems that we
> would satisfy the conditions of the junit license if we included a
> copyright notice and disclaimer in our NOTICE file.
>
> Other opinions?
If we don't redistribute it in any of our release artifacts, I don't
believe there's a need to add any notice. There are plenty of examples
of other projects that have checked junit.jar into the repository, and
do not give notice in their NOTICES file. See, e.g.:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xerces/java/trunk/tools/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lenya/trunk/lib/
and notice in Xerces's case that they include the license along the jar.
If you plan on checking it in, there's a JIRA for it:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1671
I was going to do it, but then abandoned it after somebody expressed
concern about JUnit 3.8.2 not working in some environment and figured
I would continue to leave it up to individuals to get the right one
for their environment.
I don't remember offhand what the issue was, but it's probably better
in the long run to go ahead and check in a version that works for most
people. Just make sure it is properly excluded from the release
distributions.
Thanks,
Andrew
Re: junit license
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I just downloaded junit 4.4. It comes with a BSD license.
I think that "BSD" licence is only for the third party code from
Hamcrest. See:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=524119&group_id=15278
Note that this is the first time third-party code has been included in
junit, hence thye may not have a good policy for identifying licences.
Dan.