W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > August 2007

Re: [Fwd: Re: Licenses and copyright for open source software development]

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:02:06 -0400
Message-ID: <e920a71c0708020602i34c8a33fr42e658bd84a4a6c1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
So... hmm. We definitely need Saxon and pretty well need JHOVE. I am a
little unclear on what Rigo's saying we must do. Can we distribute
*unmodified* Saxon's library .jar file with license? If not, can we
use it in our code but simply not redistribute the library, telling
users they'll need to acquire it on their own (the difference between
these two strikes me as small)? or can we simply not link to LGPL code
at all?

I would prefer to release this under a non-viral license, but if it
came down to it, what do people think about LGPLing this? is *that*
legal?

I can clean up the other licensing issues mentioned in this thread.



On 8/1/07, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
>
> -------- Message transféré --------
> > De: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
> > Sujet: Re: Licenses and copyright for open source software development
> > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:11:55 +0200
> > this is already a good start. There are still requirements:
> >
> > 1/ The legal notice should provide the following text required by
> > Apache:
> >
> > "This product includes software developed by the
> >  Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
> >
> > 2/ If saxon is not modified, the file should just be in the distribution
> > carrying its own license as MPL 1.0 has viral effects, but is less
> > strict than GPL. We can't distribute Saxon under the W3C Software
> > License.
> >
> > 3/ For JHOVE, please do the same unless it is modified.
> >
> > 4/ For JUnit: We need a disclaimer in the legal notice, but this is
> > already provided by the W3C Software license
> >
> > 5/ For Tagsoup, we just need attribution and can redistribute under W3C
> > License...
> >
> > So all in all, we need one document with legal notices alongside the
> > software package that describes all the licenses and their objects.
> > Some parts will be distributed under W3C Software license, some parts
> > are distributed with a more restrictive license. Participants in the
> > Group should be aware that some of the software used has viral effects
> > and that they can't distribute the whole package in object code only.
>
> Dom
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 13:02:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:03 GMT