Taverna 0.15.1 release licensing issue

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Sorry but I just voted -1 on your release on the incubator list due to licensing issues, namely Category B licensed files in a source release. [1]

This will need to be fixed before graduation but as long as you raise JIRAs for the issues and follow up on legal discuss I’d be willing to change my vote. Unless that is you think the issue is serious enough to not make the current release candidate a release.

Of course you still may get 3 +1 votes from other IPMC members.

Thanks,
Justin

PS Please CC me on any replies as I’m not subscribed to this list

1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b

Re: Taverna 0.15.1 release licensing issue

[Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>]

I have contacted Ivan Herman which was our W3C staff contact for PROV and
also now on Web Annotation Model, hopefully he will put me in touch with
the right folks to clarify schema/ontology licences and that Community CLA
which makes an interesting thread on LEGAL..
On 8 Mar 2016 10:57, "Ian Dunlop" <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Justin has changed vote to +1 (yay, thanks Justin) so we are heading in the
> right direction. I guess we need to talk to W3C here because if we have run
> into these issues then potentially other Apache projects will do the same.
> Any idea how we start a dialogue with W3C? Would be good to feed back our
> findings to the Apache licensing people.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ian
>
> On 7 March 2016 at 01:15, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > We decide the deadline, and we don't have enough binding +1s anyway on
> > general@incubator.
> >
> > I don't think we need to pull the release candidate yet - let's see
> > how this goes.
> >
>

Re: Taverna 0.15.1 release licensing issue

[Ian Dunlop <ia...@gmail.com>]

Hello,

Justin has changed vote to +1 (yay, thanks Justin) so we are heading in the
right direction. I guess we need to talk to W3C here because if we have run
into these issues then potentially other Apache projects will do the same.
Any idea how we start a dialogue with W3C? Would be good to feed back our
findings to the Apache licensing people.

Cheers,

Ian

On 7 March 2016 at 01:15, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:

> We decide the deadline, and we don't have enough binding +1s anyway on
> general@incubator.
>
> I don't think we need to pull the release candidate yet - let's see
> how this goes.
>

Re: Taverna 0.15.1 release licensing issue

[Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>]

We decide the deadline, and we don't have enough binding +1s anyway on
general@incubator.

I don't think we need to pull the release candidate yet - let's see
how this goes.

Re: Taverna 0.15.1 release licensing issue

[Gale Naylor <Ga...@noventussolutions.com>]

Can we put the release on hold for a few days while we debate the options,
or are we up against a deadline?

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:53 PM Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 5 Mar 2016 23:30, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry but I just voted -1 on your release on the incubator list due to
> licensing issues, namely Category B licensed files in a source release. [1]
> >
> > This will need to be fixed before graduation but as long as you raise
> JIRAs for the issues and follow up on legal discuss I’d be willing to
> change my vote. Unless that is you think the issue is serious enough to not
> make the current release candidate a release.
> >
> > Of course you still may get 3 +1 votes from other IPMC members.
>
> Thank you for your thorough review!
>
> We have already identified a similar issue with the bundled OASIS
> opendocument schemas, which also affect the ODF Toolkit incubator.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-925
>
>
> I started tracking what you highlighted on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-927
> and added some initial thoughts - feel free to comment in Jira!
>
>
> I think we have a path forward:
>
> a) Check with w3c what actually is the license of those XSD and
> ontology files, as it's not explicit in the upstream files. (the one
> that is explicit, uses the permissive w3c software license)
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-928
>
> b) Check with w3c what is the license for *using* artifacts donated to
> w3c under the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-932
>
> .. and then follow-up with LEGAL if that is permitted or not.
>
> A rough reading of https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
> makes it seem like a BSD license:
>
> 2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of
> the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
> royalty-free, copyright license, without any obligation for accounting
> to me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
> publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement any
> Contribution to the full extent of my copyright interest in the
> Contribution.
> 2.2. Attribution. As a condition of the copyright grant, you must
> include an attribution to the Specification in any derivative work you
> make based on the Specification. That attribution must include, at
> minimum, the Specification name and version number.
>
> but who is that CLA given *to* ?
>
> c) or.. Move those to a non-Apache Maven artifact, so it can be a
> binary dependency JAR
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-929
>
> Of course they don't have to be JARs, it could just be a wget straight
> from something
> under http://github.com/taverna-extras/ (to avoid W3Cs tar-pit and
> have an archive)
> .. but if they are in Maven central then they would also be cached in
> Maven repositories -
> ODF need something similar for the OASIS schemas
>
>
> d) Avoid depending on them at all.. by:
>
> hand-coding ontology constants:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-930
>
> hand-coding clean-room schemas as non-derived JAXB beans (this is more
> work):
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-931
>
>
> What do you think folks - is this enough to cancel the release
> candidate, or can we deal with this as we move towards graduation?  I
> think there could be similar issues in taverna-server schema files.
>
>
> We might be able to do some quick-and-dirty move of the "possibly
> offending" files to the taverna-extras github - which of course adds a
> download dependency on another third-source during build (but under
> the control of multiple of the Taverna committers).
>

Re: Taverna 0.15.1 release licensing issue

[Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>]

On 5 Mar 2016 23:30, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry but I just voted -1 on your release on the incubator list due to licensing issues, namely Category B licensed files in a source release. [1]
>
> This will need to be fixed before graduation but as long as you raise JIRAs for the issues and follow up on legal discuss I’d be willing to change my vote. Unless that is you think the issue is serious enough to not make the current release candidate a release.
>
> Of course you still may get 3 +1 votes from other IPMC members.

Thank you for your thorough review!

We have already identified a similar issue with the bundled OASIS
opendocument schemas, which also affect the ODF Toolkit incubator.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-925


I started tracking what you highlighted on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-927
and added some initial thoughts - feel free to comment in Jira!


I think we have a path forward:

a) Check with w3c what actually is the license of those XSD and
ontology files, as it's not explicit in the upstream files. (the one
that is explicit, uses the permissive w3c software license)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-928

b) Check with w3c what is the license for *using* artifacts donated to
w3c under the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-932

.. and then follow-up with LEGAL if that is permitted or not.

A rough reading of https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
makes it seem like a BSD license:

2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of
the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, copyright license, without any obligation for accounting
to me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement any
Contribution to the full extent of my copyright interest in the
Contribution.
2.2. Attribution. As a condition of the copyright grant, you must
include an attribution to the Specification in any derivative work you
make based on the Specification. That attribution must include, at
minimum, the Specification name and version number.

but who is that CLA given *to* ?

c) or.. Move those to a non-Apache Maven artifact, so it can be a
binary dependency JAR
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-929

Of course they don't have to be JARs, it could just be a wget straight
from something
under http://github.com/taverna-extras/ (to avoid W3Cs tar-pit and
have an archive)
.. but if they are in Maven central then they would also be cached in
Maven repositories -
ODF need something similar for the OASIS schemas


d) Avoid depending on them at all.. by:

hand-coding ontology constants:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-930

hand-coding clean-room schemas as non-derived JAXB beans (this is more work):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-931


What do you think folks - is this enough to cancel the release
candidate, or can we deal with this as we move towards graduation?  I
think there could be similar issues in taverna-server schema files.


We might be able to do some quick-and-dirty move of the "possibly
offending" files to the taverna-extras github - which of course adds a
download dependency on another third-source during build (but under
the control of multiple of the Taverna committers).