incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: Dual-licensed logo PNG (CC-BY 3.0, LGPL 3.0)?
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2016 02:25:35 GMT
Hi,

I would recommend that we only license that under CC-SA, but you might want
to point out that the media files are also available under LGPL3. The
downstream user can re-apply (or swap with) the LGPL3 if they want to, as
those media files are unmodified and we lay no additional claims.


Cheers
Niclas

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Our GSOC student wants to include a PNG for a CWL logo (for
> representing CWL services within Apache Taverna), but the original
> logo is dual-licensed:
>
> From https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/blob/
> master/LICENSE.md
>
> > The Common Workflow Language Logos are (C) Copyright 2016 the Common
> Workflow Language Project and are released under the terms of the GNU
> Lesser General Public License, version 3 or any later version, or, at your
> option, of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
>
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#cc-sa says:
>
> > Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
> and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included
> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed
> work, please contact the Legal PMC.
>
>
> So I guess our best option is to use it under CC-SA 3.0 - but as LGPL
> 3.0 in this case is not effectively incompatible with ASF license
> either direction (it's easy to replace a PNG file in a JAR) - I don't
> see a reason why we have to remove that dual-license choice for
> downstream users?
>
> That is - my question is - are we fine in NOT specifying which of the
> two licenses we choose to distribute the PNG under?
>
> (This would allow for instance a GPL 3.0 downstream project to embed
> our code AND the logo without re-sourcing it from upstream)
>
>
>
> Here's our student's proposed modifications to append to our project's
> LICENSE:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-common-
> activities/pull/21/files
>
>
> I assume we don't need to also modify our NOTICE file?  Am I correct
> in this understanding? Or should we do something more, e.g.
> cwl-logo-header.txt file next to the PNG or adding to the README?
>
>
>
> BTW - I have raised an issue upstream about the attribution as "Common
> Workflow Language Project" does not seem to be a legal copyright
> holder:
>
> https://github.com/common-workflow-language/logo/issues/2
>
> ..I guess for now we should respect their current (C) statement.
>
>
> Any feedback?
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message