james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: OpenSPF test resources licenses
Date Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:17:31 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 11:02 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We (Apache JAMES project) are developing an SPF implementation in java
>> (jSPF) [1].
>>
>> Part of our test suite works by parsing 2 YAML files [2][3] provided as
>> part of the OpenSPF group [4] TestSuite [5]
>>
>> Currently we wrote the java tests to simply "silently pass" if the 2
>> yaml files are not there and we place them only in our local checkout,
>> but we would like to understand if we are allowed to place them in our
>> svn repository and to redistribute them in the sources tar.gz.
>>
>> The 2 files [2][3] have no specific license header.
>> The OpenSPF group website [4] tells "Unless noted otherwise, all content
>> on this website is dual-licensed under the  GNU GPL v2 and the  Creative
>> Commons CC BY-SA 2.5."
>>
>> So the first question is: are we allowed to redistribute unmodified yaml
>> files originally licensed under the "Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.5"? Do
>> we just need the usual NOTICE reference and LICENSE pointer?
> 
> from what i can tell, Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.5 is a reciprocal
> license. AIUI this would mean that it shouldn't be distributed as part
> of an apache release.
> 
> (hopefully people will jump in with corrections if this is incorrect)

Norman Maurer already tested this topic in past January in legal-discuss:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200701.mbox/<45AB8260.8080102@apache.org>
Unfortunately it had no replies.

Here is the last interesting email we found about this topic:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<c5e632550610270807qad46ffaodc4d65703676608f@mail.gmail.com>

Cliff said:
-------
Questionable -- needs a closer look (would probably get same treatment
as OSL): Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
-------

BTW I think that for the jSPF specific issue we can rely on the
alternative PSFL solution and even better convince the openspf group to
release the next test suite version under a BSD license.

>> Second option: an spf-devel member reported that the yaml files have
>> been developed as part of pyspf [6] and are released under the Python
>> Software Foundation License [7]. The PSFL is a BSD derived license (in
>> principle) but contains a lot of sentences and is not listed in the ASF
>> license guidelines [8].
>>
>> WDYT?
> 
> the python license looks BSDish to me. opinions?

At the moment we altered jSPF source tree to include and reference the
PSFL license for the 2 involved files. IANAL, but it looks BSDish to me too.

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message