incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <>
Subject Re: publishing standard XML Schema as part of Woden deliverable
Date Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:01:34 GMT
On 10/31/06, Graham Turrell <> wrote:
> Hi list,
> I originally posted this question to legal-discuss, but thought it would
> be good to widen the circulation to general@incubator to get the benefit of
> your experience also. All comments/thoughts welcome !

substituting quantity for quality :-)

> I work on the Woden incubator project and have been asked to investigate
> what (legal and/or procedural) issues there might be in including the
> standard WSDL2 schema and XML schema as part of the Woden deliverable. This
> is in connection with the provision of a URI Resolver in Woden, one use of
> which is to redirect Schema access to locally stored versions, thus
> allowing offline parsing.
> Also, we have a testcase that uses local schema copies (even though the
> woden deliverable itself currently does not contain them). The testcases
> are stored on apache svn server and we need to add this new testcase to
> them. Are there any issues with doing so? I would stress that they that
> they are *not* part of the deliverable.
> I include the copyright statements for the files in question:
> wsdl20.xsd (wsdl20-extensions.xsd, wsdl20-rpc.xsd and wsdl20-soap.xsd all
> use the same copyright notice).:
> <!--
>    W3C XML Schema defined in the Web Services Description (WSDL)
>     Version 2.0 specification
>    Copyright (c) 2005 World Wide Web Consortium,
>    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, European Research Consortium for
>    Informatics and Mathematics, Keio University). All Rights Reserved. This
>    work is distributed under the W3C (c) Software License [1] in the hope
> that
>    it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied
>    [1]
>    $Id: wsdl20.xsd,v 1.11 2006/05/08 23:52:18 aryman Exp $
> -->

(W3C SOFTWARE NOTICE AND LICENSE) is fine (non-reciprical open
source). there's no problem distributing it as part of an apache

note that the NOTICE and LICENSE files would need to be updated with
the notice required by W3C and the license for the files indicated in
the LICENSE (for example respectively.

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message