You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> on 2016/08/26 13:41:47 UTC
Dual-licensed logo PNG (CC-BY 3.0, LGPL 3.0)?
Hi,
Our GSOC student wants to include a PNG for a CWL logo (for
representing CWL services within Apache Taverna), but the original
logo is dual-licensed:
From https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/blob/master/LICENSE.md
> The Common Workflow Language Logos are (C) Copyright 2016 the Common Workflow Language Project and are released under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3 or any later version, or, at your option, of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#cc-sa says:
> Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed work, please contact the Legal PMC.
So I guess our best option is to use it under CC-SA 3.0 - but as LGPL
3.0 in this case is not effectively incompatible with ASF license
either direction (it's easy to replace a PNG file in a JAR) - I don't
see a reason why we have to remove that dual-license choice for
downstream users?
That is - my question is - are we fine in NOT specifying which of the
two licenses we choose to distribute the PNG under?
(This would allow for instance a GPL 3.0 downstream project to embed
our code AND the logo without re-sourcing it from upstream)
Here's our student's proposed modifications to append to our project's LICENSE:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-common-activities/pull/21/files
I assume we don't need to also modify our NOTICE file? Am I correct
in this understanding? Or should we do something more, e.g.
cwl-logo-header.txt file next to the PNG or adding to the README?
BTW - I have raised an issue upstream about the attribution as "Common
Workflow Language Project" does not seem to be a legal copyright
holder:
https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/issues/2
..I guess for now we should respect their current (C) statement.
Any feedback?
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Dual-licensed logo PNG (CC-BY 3.0, LGPL 3.0)? [TAVERNA]
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Since Common Workflow code appears to be under ALv2, it might be worth
contacting that community and asking them to re-license the logo under
ALv2 as well and explain how the current logo licensing makes ALv2
consumption more difficult if they want their logo included in downstream
releases.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 8/27/16, 4:23 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>Indeed, I find it wholly unthinkable that we'd include any LGPL bits in
>an Apache product release, even if it's an ambiguous choice of licenses.
> There is no ambiguity in what types of licenses are allowed in Apache
>releases.
>
>The only way to do this (IMO, I'm not VP, Legal) is to make clear that
>we are licensing the unmodified graphic as CC-SA in our release. If
>someone wants to include a note elsewhere in the release pointing to the
>original source of the PNG, that's fine.
>
>Please be sure this is noted on your project lists so your mentors can
>track it as well.
>
>- Shane
>
>Niclas Hedhman wrote on 8/26/16 10:25 PM:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would recommend that we only license that under CC-SA, but you might
>>want
>> to point out that the media files are also available under LGPL3. The
>> downstream user can re-apply (or swap with) the LGPL3 if they want to,
>>as
>> those media files are unmodified and we lay no additional claims.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Niclas
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Our GSOC student wants to include a PNG for a CWL logo (for
>>> representing CWL services within Apache Taverna), but the original
>>> logo is dual-licensed:
>>>
>>> From https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/blob/
>>> master/LICENSE.md
>>>
>>>> The Common Workflow Language Logos are (C) Copyright 2016 the Common
>>> Workflow Language Project and are released under the terms of the GNU
>>> Lesser General Public License, version 3 or any later version, or, at
>>>your
>>> option, of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
>>>License.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#cc-sa says:
>>>
>>>> Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
>>>>2.5
>>> and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be
>>>included
>>> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which
>>>may
>>> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA
>>>licensed
>>> work, please contact the Legal PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>> So I guess our best option is to use it under CC-SA 3.0 - but as LGPL
>>> 3.0 in this case is not effectively incompatible with ASF license
>>> either direction (it's easy to replace a PNG file in a JAR) - I don't
>>> see a reason why we have to remove that dual-license choice for
>>> downstream users?
>>>
>>> That is - my question is - are we fine in NOT specifying which of the
>>> two licenses we choose to distribute the PNG under?
>>>
>>> (This would allow for instance a GPL 3.0 downstream project to embed
>>> our code AND the logo without re-sourcing it from upstream)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's our student's proposed modifications to append to our project's
>>> LICENSE:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-common-
>>> activities/pull/21/files
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume we don't need to also modify our NOTICE file? Am I correct
>>> in this understanding? Or should we do something more, e.g.
>>> cwl-logo-header.txt file next to the PNG or adding to the README?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW - I have raised an issue upstream about the attribution as "Common
>>> Workflow Language Project" does not seem to be a legal copyright
>>> holder:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/issues/2
>>>
>>> ..I guess for now we should respect their current (C) statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Any feedback?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
>>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: Dual-licensed logo PNG (CC-BY 3.0, LGPL 3.0)? [TAVERNA]
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Indeed, I find it wholly unthinkable that we'd include any LGPL bits in
an Apache product release, even if it's an ambiguous choice of licenses.
There is no ambiguity in what types of licenses are allowed in Apache
releases.
The only way to do this (IMO, I'm not VP, Legal) is to make clear that
we are licensing the unmodified graphic as CC-SA in our release. If
someone wants to include a note elsewhere in the release pointing to the
original source of the PNG, that's fine.
Please be sure this is noted on your project lists so your mentors can
track it as well.
- Shane
Niclas Hedhman wrote on 8/26/16 10:25 PM:
> Hi,
>
> I would recommend that we only license that under CC-SA, but you might want
> to point out that the media files are also available under LGPL3. The
> downstream user can re-apply (or swap with) the LGPL3 if they want to, as
> those media files are unmodified and we lay no additional claims.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Our GSOC student wants to include a PNG for a CWL logo (for
>> representing CWL services within Apache Taverna), but the original
>> logo is dual-licensed:
>>
>> From https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/blob/
>> master/LICENSE.md
>>
>>> The Common Workflow Language Logos are (C) Copyright 2016 the Common
>> Workflow Language Project and are released under the terms of the GNU
>> Lesser General Public License, version 3 or any later version, or, at your
>> option, of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
>>
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#cc-sa says:
>>
>>> Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
>> and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included
>> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
>> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed
>> work, please contact the Legal PMC.
>>
>>
>> So I guess our best option is to use it under CC-SA 3.0 - but as LGPL
>> 3.0 in this case is not effectively incompatible with ASF license
>> either direction (it's easy to replace a PNG file in a JAR) - I don't
>> see a reason why we have to remove that dual-license choice for
>> downstream users?
>>
>> That is - my question is - are we fine in NOT specifying which of the
>> two licenses we choose to distribute the PNG under?
>>
>> (This would allow for instance a GPL 3.0 downstream project to embed
>> our code AND the logo without re-sourcing it from upstream)
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's our student's proposed modifications to append to our project's
>> LICENSE:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-common-
>> activities/pull/21/files
>>
>>
>> I assume we don't need to also modify our NOTICE file? Am I correct
>> in this understanding? Or should we do something more, e.g.
>> cwl-logo-header.txt file next to the PNG or adding to the README?
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW - I have raised an issue upstream about the attribution as "Common
>> Workflow Language Project" does not seem to be a legal copyright
>> holder:
>>
>> https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/issues/2
>>
>> ..I guess for now we should respect their current (C) statement.
>>
>>
>> Any feedback?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Dual-licensed logo PNG (CC-BY 3.0, LGPL 3.0)?
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Hi,
I would recommend that we only license that under CC-SA, but you might want
to point out that the media files are also available under LGPL3. The
downstream user can re-apply (or swap with) the LGPL3 if they want to, as
those media files are unmodified and we lay no additional claims.
Cheers
Niclas
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our GSOC student wants to include a PNG for a CWL logo (for
> representing CWL services within Apache Taverna), but the original
> logo is dual-licensed:
>
> From https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/blob/
> master/LICENSE.md
>
> > The Common Workflow Language Logos are (C) Copyright 2016 the Common
> Workflow Language Project and are released under the terms of the GNU
> Lesser General Public License, version 3 or any later version, or, at your
> option, of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
>
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#cc-sa says:
>
> > Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
> and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included
> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed
> work, please contact the Legal PMC.
>
>
> So I guess our best option is to use it under CC-SA 3.0 - but as LGPL
> 3.0 in this case is not effectively incompatible with ASF license
> either direction (it's easy to replace a PNG file in a JAR) - I don't
> see a reason why we have to remove that dual-license choice for
> downstream users?
>
> That is - my question is - are we fine in NOT specifying which of the
> two licenses we choose to distribute the PNG under?
>
> (This would allow for instance a GPL 3.0 downstream project to embed
> our code AND the logo without re-sourcing it from upstream)
>
>
>
> Here's our student's proposed modifications to append to our project's
> LICENSE:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-common-
> activities/pull/21/files
>
>
> I assume we don't need to also modify our NOTICE file? Am I correct
> in this understanding? Or should we do something more, e.g.
> cwl-logo-header.txt file next to the PNG or adding to the README?
>
>
>
> BTW - I have raised an issue upstream about the attribution as "Common
> Workflow Language Project" does not seem to be a legal copyright
> holder:
>
> https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/issues/2
>
> ..I guess for now we should respect their current (C) statement.
>
>
> Any feedback?
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java