You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2008/05/28 16:34:33 UTC
Creative Commons Attribution License
I'd like to add JCIP annotations to some Java projects.
The JCIP jar is available under the:
Creative Commons Attribution License -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5
This does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on the current 3rd party
page draft (apart from a passing reference to icons).
As far as I can tell, the JCIP annotations jar is only needed at
compile time, however users would not be able to rebuild without it,
so it's not an optional dependency.
Also if the jar is not included in the project distribution, it would
need to be installed in a Maven repository - which seems to me to be
akin to distribution...
Can we use JCIP in projects and add it to Maven repos?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
I've added CC-A to the category A list and added the following as a
paragraph beneath said list:
"Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to
be adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE
file. Ensure you are doing this when including these works."
Hen
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yep. I think we need to add it to the resolved page under the category
> A grouping.
>
> The only question is how much information we add for each license on
> how to obey the license. Do we list the 6 attributions to look out for
> for a CCA, and where.
>
> Hen
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:33 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Going back to the original question, the concensus seems to be:
>>
>> 1) A project can unconditionally depend on a binary released under the
>> CCAL, e.g. jcip annotations.
>>
>> 2) A jar released under CCAL can be stored in the Maven repository;
>> how it gets there is a matter to be resolved.
>>
>> As it happens, it looks like the annotations classes are already in
>> the M2 repository as part of Findbugs. However Findbugs is LGPL v2.1
>> licensed.
>>
>> On 29/05/2008, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Fair point - their attribution clauses (section 3b) are a bit more
>>> convoluted than such things normally are. I'll note it on the
>>> resolved-questions page. Digging into the details of 3b:
>>>
>>> *1* Keep copyright statements [no problem, we'd do the same for anything]
>>> *2* Identify the original author [I'd expect the copyright statement
>>> to do that, but maybe there if is none then we could slip up here]
>>> *3* Sponsor if supplied [This is the one I wouldn't expect us to
>>> usually look for]
>>> *4* Title if supplied [It would get named in some way]
>>> *5* URL
>>> *6* Derivative work statement [This would then be in ASF source rather
>>> than a 3rd party dependency and would go in the NOTICE]
>>>
>>> Summarizing, we would generally do 1 and 6 by default. It seems
>>> unlikely that we would not cover 2 and 4, unlikely that 3 happens very
>>> often and quite likely that we would link to the URL.
>>>
>>> Maybe however we should have a defined format for a third party notice
>>> file. All of the above are good ideas (except sponsor) for any third
>>> party dependency and having a common format for such things across our
>>> projects seems good. I've seen some xml files in oss projects recently
>>> (I think they were JBoss ones) so it might be that there is a nascent
>>> standard available. Maven have also been digging into such things,
>>> though they've been putting it in the NOTICE.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > What about the attribution : "You must attribute the work in the
>>> > manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that
>>> > suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2008/5/29 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>:
>>> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> >>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact...
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Yep. I think we need to add it to the resolved page under the category
A grouping.
The only question is how much information we add for each license on
how to obey the license. Do we list the 6 attributions to look out for
for a CCA, and where.
Hen
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:33 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Going back to the original question, the concensus seems to be:
>
> 1) A project can unconditionally depend on a binary released under the
> CCAL, e.g. jcip annotations.
>
> 2) A jar released under CCAL can be stored in the Maven repository;
> how it gets there is a matter to be resolved.
>
> As it happens, it looks like the annotations classes are already in
> the M2 repository as part of Findbugs. However Findbugs is LGPL v2.1
> licensed.
>
> On 29/05/2008, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Fair point - their attribution clauses (section 3b) are a bit more
>> convoluted than such things normally are. I'll note it on the
>> resolved-questions page. Digging into the details of 3b:
>>
>> *1* Keep copyright statements [no problem, we'd do the same for anything]
>> *2* Identify the original author [I'd expect the copyright statement
>> to do that, but maybe there if is none then we could slip up here]
>> *3* Sponsor if supplied [This is the one I wouldn't expect us to
>> usually look for]
>> *4* Title if supplied [It would get named in some way]
>> *5* URL
>> *6* Derivative work statement [This would then be in ASF source rather
>> than a 3rd party dependency and would go in the NOTICE]
>>
>> Summarizing, we would generally do 1 and 6 by default. It seems
>> unlikely that we would not cover 2 and 4, unlikely that 3 happens very
>> often and quite likely that we would link to the URL.
>>
>> Maybe however we should have a defined format for a third party notice
>> file. All of the above are good ideas (except sponsor) for any third
>> party dependency and having a common format for such things across our
>> projects seems good. I've seen some xml files in oss projects recently
>> (I think they were JBoss ones) so it might be that there is a nascent
>> standard available. Maven have also been digging into such things,
>> though they've been putting it in the NOTICE.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What about the attribution : "You must attribute the work in the
>> > manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that
>> > suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2008/5/29 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>:
>> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact...
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Going back to the original question, the concensus seems to be:
1) A project can unconditionally depend on a binary released under the
CCAL, e.g. jcip annotations.
2) A jar released under CCAL can be stored in the Maven repository;
how it gets there is a matter to be resolved.
As it happens, it looks like the annotations classes are already in
the M2 repository as part of Findbugs. However Findbugs is LGPL v2.1
licensed.
On 29/05/2008, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> Fair point - their attribution clauses (section 3b) are a bit more
> convoluted than such things normally are. I'll note it on the
> resolved-questions page. Digging into the details of 3b:
>
> *1* Keep copyright statements [no problem, we'd do the same for anything]
> *2* Identify the original author [I'd expect the copyright statement
> to do that, but maybe there if is none then we could slip up here]
> *3* Sponsor if supplied [This is the one I wouldn't expect us to
> usually look for]
> *4* Title if supplied [It would get named in some way]
> *5* URL
> *6* Derivative work statement [This would then be in ASF source rather
> than a 3rd party dependency and would go in the NOTICE]
>
> Summarizing, we would generally do 1 and 6 by default. It seems
> unlikely that we would not cover 2 and 4, unlikely that 3 happens very
> often and quite likely that we would link to the URL.
>
> Maybe however we should have a defined format for a third party notice
> file. All of the above are good ideas (except sponsor) for any third
> party dependency and having a common format for such things across our
> projects seems good. I've seen some xml files in oss projects recently
> (I think they were JBoss ones) so it might be that there is a nascent
> standard available. Maven have also been digging into such things,
> though they've been putting it in the NOTICE.
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What about the attribution : "You must attribute the work in the
> > manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that
> > suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
> >
> >
> >
> > 2008/5/29 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>:
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact...
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Fair point - their attribution clauses (section 3b) are a bit more
convoluted than such things normally are. I'll note it on the
resolved-questions page. Digging into the details of 3b:
*1* Keep copyright statements [no problem, we'd do the same for anything]
*2* Identify the original author [I'd expect the copyright statement
to do that, but maybe there if is none then we could slip up here]
*3* Sponsor if supplied [This is the one I wouldn't expect us to
usually look for]
*4* Title if supplied [It would get named in some way]
*5* URL
*6* Derivative work statement [This would then be in ASF source rather
than a 3rd party dependency and would go in the NOTICE]
Summarizing, we would generally do 1 and 6 by default. It seems
unlikely that we would not cover 2 and 4, unlikely that 3 happens very
often and quite likely that we would link to the URL.
Maybe however we should have a defined format for a third party notice
file. All of the above are good ideas (except sponsor) for any third
party dependency and having a common format for such things across our
projects seems good. I've seen some xml files in oss projects recently
(I think they were JBoss ones) so it might be that there is a nascent
standard available. Maven have also been digging into such things,
though they've been putting it in the NOTICE.
Hen
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about the attribution : "You must attribute the work in the
> manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that
> suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
>
>
>
> 2008/5/29 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>:
>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com>.
What about the attribution : "You must attribute the work in the
manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that
suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
2008/5/29 Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact, but I'm
>>> troubled by the notion that an artifact would be installed into a Maven
>>> repository by "not the author".
>>
>> I, on the other hand, have zero problems with that.
>>
>> The very purpose of creating an open source or creative commons
>> license is to remove the very need to obtain permission for a select
>> set of uses. In fact I have personally heard Joi Ito (current CEO of
>> Creative Commons) argue very eloquently AGAINST the idea that people
>> should either seek, or grant, permissions to works that are already
>> licensed under a creative commons license. He cites the Chicago
>> Manual of Style:
>>
>> "The act of seeking permission establishes that the author feels
>> permission is needed, and the tacit admission may be damaging to the
>> author's cause."
>>
>> Think about it. You write open source code. An individual, a group,
>> or a company is free to pick up that code and distribute it to
>> his/her/their users. In general, do they need to seek your permission
>> before they do so? No.
>>
>>> Would it be possible for you to contact the owner and ask if they would
>>> publish it to a Maven repo themselves?
>>
>> I am confident that I have written code that exists in a Maven
>> repository that I haven't put there. And while I may be the original
>> author of that code, I am not the "owner".
>
> Agreed. I'm pissed when they make releases for me rather than using my
> (our) releases, but no problem with it going in there.
>
> Anyway - the Maven repository guys can decide whether they want the
> original author to hand it in or not. I don't think we need to worry
> about it as there's nothing wrong with redistributing this.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
--
Gilles Scokart
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact, but I'm
>> troubled by the notion that an artifact would be installed into a Maven
>> repository by "not the author".
>
> I, on the other hand, have zero problems with that.
>
> The very purpose of creating an open source or creative commons
> license is to remove the very need to obtain permission for a select
> set of uses. In fact I have personally heard Joi Ito (current CEO of
> Creative Commons) argue very eloquently AGAINST the idea that people
> should either seek, or grant, permissions to works that are already
> licensed under a creative commons license. He cites the Chicago
> Manual of Style:
>
> "The act of seeking permission establishes that the author feels
> permission is needed, and the tacit admission may be damaging to the
> author's cause."
>
> Think about it. You write open source code. An individual, a group,
> or a company is free to pick up that code and distribute it to
> his/her/their users. In general, do they need to seek your permission
> before they do so? No.
>
>> Would it be possible for you to contact the owner and ask if they would
>> publish it to a Maven repo themselves?
>
> I am confident that I have written code that exists in a Maven
> repository that I haven't put there. And while I may be the original
> author of that code, I am not the "owner".
Agreed. I'm pissed when they make releases for me rather than using my
(our) releases, but no problem with it going in there.
Anyway - the Maven repository guys can decide whether they want the
original author to hand it in or not. I don't think we need to worry
about it as there's nothing wrong with redistributing this.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact, but I'm
> troubled by the notion that an artifact would be installed into a Maven
> repository by "not the author".
I, on the other hand, have zero problems with that.
The very purpose of creating an open source or creative commons
license is to remove the very need to obtain permission for a select
set of uses. In fact I have personally heard Joi Ito (current CEO of
Creative Commons) argue very eloquently AGAINST the idea that people
should either seek, or grant, permissions to works that are already
licensed under a creative commons license. He cites the Chicago
Manual of Style:
"The act of seeking permission establishes that the author feels
permission is needed, and the tacit admission may be damaging to the
author's cause."
Think about it. You write open source code. An individual, a group,
or a company is free to pick up that code and distribute it to
his/her/their users. In general, do they need to seek your permission
before they do so? No.
> Would it be possible for you to contact the owner and ask if they would
> publish it to a Maven repo themselves?
I am confident that I have written code that exists in a Maven
repository that I haven't put there. And while I may be the original
author of that code, I am not the "owner".
> Craig
>
> On May 28, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> I think that specific CC license should be fine and should be added to
>> our list of "Akin to Apache" at
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> Any -1s from the Legal PMC?
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:34 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to add JCIP annotations to some Java projects.
>>>
>>> The JCIP jar is available under the:
>>>
>>> Creative Commons Attribution License -
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5
>>>
>>> This does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on the current 3rd party
>>> page draft (apart from a passing reference to icons).
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the JCIP annotations jar is only needed at
>>> compile time, however users would not be able to rebuild without it,
>>> so it's not an optional dependency.
>>>
>>> Also if the jar is not included in the project distribution, it would
>>> need to be installed in a Maven repository - which seems to me to be
>>> akin to distribution...
>>>
>>> Can we use JCIP in projects and add it to Maven repos?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Craig L Russell ha scritto:
> I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact, but
> I'm troubled by the notion that an artifact would be installed into a
> Maven repository by "not the author".
I had big issues with the fact that pom.xml in maven repository have no
license headers. Our PMC voted down redistributing some of them because
of this.
It should be enforced that any uploaded pom.xml include a license header
to specify the license for the pom itself.
Unfortunately most pom.xml in the current repository do not have the
license header and we don't even know who hold the copyright for that
files, AFAIK.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact, but
I'm troubled by the notion that an artifact would be installed into a
Maven repository by "not the author".
Would it be possible for you to contact the owner and ask if they
would publish it to a Maven repo themselves?
Craig
On May 28, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> I think that specific CC license should be fine and should be added to
> our list of "Akin to Apache" at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> Any -1s from the Legal PMC?
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:34 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to add JCIP annotations to some Java projects.
>>
>> The JCIP jar is available under the:
>>
>> Creative Commons Attribution License -
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5
>>
>> This does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on the current 3rd party
>> page draft (apart from a passing reference to icons).
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the JCIP annotations jar is only needed at
>> compile time, however users would not be able to rebuild without it,
>> so it's not an optional dependency.
>>
>> Also if the jar is not included in the project distribution, it would
>> need to be installed in a Maven repository - which seems to me to be
>> akin to distribution...
>>
>> Can we use JCIP in projects and add it to Maven repos?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Creative Commons Attribution License
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
I think that specific CC license should be fine and should be added to
our list of "Akin to Apache" at
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
Any -1s from the Legal PMC?
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:34 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to add JCIP annotations to some Java projects.
>
> The JCIP jar is available under the:
>
> Creative Commons Attribution License -
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5
>
> This does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on the current 3rd party
> page draft (apart from a passing reference to icons).
>
> As far as I can tell, the JCIP annotations jar is only needed at
> compile time, however users would not be able to rebuild without it,
> so it's not an optional dependency.
>
> Also if the jar is not included in the project distribution, it would
> need to be installed in a Maven repository - which seems to me to be
> akin to distribution...
>
> Can we use JCIP in projects and add it to Maven repos?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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