incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Taverna Language 0.16.0-incubating RC1
Date Mon, 28 May 2018 21:43:22 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2018 12:25:47 -0700, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> -1 (binding)

Thanks for checking!

> There are several files in the source release that are licensed as:
> Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
> This is a category B license. [1] 

We included the CC-BY-licensed ontologies for
compatibility, as we saw the category-b license FAQ says:

> For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF
> product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is
> unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being
> specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is
> also permitted.  An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd,
> whose inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces
> specification.

These OWL ontologies *are* directly consumed at runtime in source form,
unmodified and unlikely to be changed (that would defy their purpose of
compliance against their declared namespace).

We have discussed in Taverna that we could move these to be packaged
outside ASF on GitHub (and somehow deployed to Maven Central by us
wearing non-ASF hats, so that we can use them as "binaries". Do you
think that workaround is necessary, or can we keep them given the "small
amount" consideration?  

(They are not executable source code, but more like namespace

See also

> I’ll note that Stian is listed as a
> copyright holder for some of these … Either these need to be
> relicensed to a category A license or some other mechanism will need
> to be found to make these optional. 

Yes, we did relicense to Apache License on several ontologies where Univ
of Manchester were the sole copyright holder and so were covered by the
Software Grant. 

Unfortunately some of the others have multiple institutions as copyright
holders; we can try to work with their community to change these to a 
CatA license - however Apache License might not be ideal either here as
it is not compatible with GPL 2 (just 2+).

> The LICENSE file should include the other licenses and not references
> to them.

I agree, this seems to have been missed. 

Stian Soiland-Reyes

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

View raw message