You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2015/04/27 18:39:56 UTC
[Bug 57862] New: Unclear XSD files license
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
Bug ID: 57862
Summary: Unclear XSD files license
Product: POI
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: POI Overall
Assignee: dev@poi.apache.org
Reporter: puntogil@libero.it
Hi,
Fedora is a popular distribution of the Linux operating system, and we wish to
include the latest version of Apache POI [3] in our OS. Fedora only contains
Free and Open Source licensed works.
I tried to contact ETSI for the terms of the license for the XSD files
[1] [2],
included in Apache Poi [3]. but until now I have not received answers.
These XML schema files appear to have come directly from the standard
documents, and look to be copyrighted by ETSI, but the copyright license terms
[4] on those schema files is unclear.
thanks in advance
[1] http://uri.etsi.org/01903/v1.3.2/XAdES.xsd
[2] http://uri.etsi.org/01903/v1.4.1/XAdESv141.xsd
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146670
[4] http://www.etsi.org/index.php/terms-of-use
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
[Bug 57862] Unclear XSD files license
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
Dominik Stadler <do...@gmx.at> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Stadler <do...@gmx.at> ---
As far as I see there not much else that we need/can provide right now here, if
this is not yet resolved the discussion should probably go to the dev-mailing
list at dev@poi.apache.org until we know if there are changes required at all.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
[Bug 57862] Unclear XSD files license
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
--- Comment #1 from Nick Burch <ap...@gagravarr.org> ---
The XSDs, as part of the OOXML specification, are covered by the Microsoft Open
Specification Promise -
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/openspecifications/dn646765
You can find the discussions on the legal list about the licensing from back
when the OOXML support was added:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200802.mbox/%3Calpine.LFD.1.00.0802041355590.7149@localhost.localdomain%3E
And some specific bits in this email:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200802.mbox/%3Calpine.LFD.1.00.0802151053350.29904@localhost.localdomain%3E
Without knowing the Fedora rules on what is and isn't considered Free/Open, I
can't comment on if that's good enough for you, only that the ASF legal affairs
committee have approved them for inclusion in and distribution by an Apache
project
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
[Bug 57862] Unclear XSD files license
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
--- Comment #2 from Tom Callaway <tc...@redhat.com> ---
I guess the real question here is whether these files can be modified or not.
That's not clear from the links you sent. I'd agree that they seem to be freely
distributable, but without permission to modify, they're neither Free or Open
Source.
If these files were purely documentation, this might not matter, but the way
these files are being used to power the software means that they (imho) need to
be FOSS.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
[Bug 57862] Unclear XSD files license
Posted by bu...@apache.org.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
--- Comment #3 from Nick Burch <ap...@gagravarr.org> ---
Currently, we use XMLBeans to automatically generate Java source code based on
the XSDs, then compile and use that resulting code. That intermediate source
code is open source, available, and can be changed (if you really want to -
normally fixing things in the generating XMLBeans code would be recommended if
there's a bug!)
Unmodifiable standards definitions are a reasonably common thing. For example,
I believe a number of projects distributed in Fedora include the EPSG geodetic
parameter dataset which has restrictions on modification. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-183 for the discussions we at the
ASF had about incorporating that. Maybe the Fedora rules for that (or similar)
could be used as a guide here too?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org