Hi David, thanks for reaching out, I'm adding dev@, also please prefix everything with "I'm not a lawyer, this is my personal opinion"
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:57 AM David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’m writing off-list in case this might cause anyone problems :-) I think this should also be discussed at the dev mailing list, there's no causing problems, we can discuss and see the different viewpoints in open, this is the ASF way. > IMO there’s at least one licensing problem in the camel-website project: > someone added a root-level AL2 LICENSE whereas the antora-ui-camel has a MPL2 > LICENSE. This is very confusing at best. I hope you can find an easy way to > clarify it. TLDR, I don't think it is. I think we are complying to the license requirements of MPL2.0 and ASL 2.0. > My main licensing questions, though, are > > - why is it acceptable to have the MPL2 licensed Antora default ui in an > Apache repo? Because the antora-ui-default from Antora, from which the antora-ui-camel is based on, is licensed as MPL 2.0 and we comply with that. > - why is acceptable to use MPL2 licensed js and css in an apache static > website? Because inclusion of MPL 2.0 licensed source code is not prohibited at ASF if it's included in binary form[1], the caveat for CSS and JavaScript is that there is no binary form. Therefore I think we comply with the spirit of Category B. Even more, the website itself is not what's being distributed to users in the literal definition of software distribution, and it is not something the users will typically base their Camel usage in their software. > I haven’t been able to find indications in the apache licensing docs I’ve > found that indicate that either one of these complies with apache policy. > I’m trying to migrate the TomEE website to antora so knowing why this is OK > would be a relief :-) The guidance is provided in [1], feel free to reach out to legal-discuss@ to verify. > Long-term, I hope a less convoluted solution might be: > > — separate the bundling code from the UI source (Consider extracting ui > building functionality to a separate project) > > — provide a good mechanism for building one UI from another, just applying > some changes (Find a way to extend one ui bundle into another one.) > > — Ideally, get Dan to relicense the UI source under MIT. > > If you have any distributed component questions don’t hesitate to ask, by > email or on the Gitter Antora/Users channel. With all prefixes from the top, I don't think we need to do any of that. If this indeed is an issue, I think it would be better to consider re-licensing antora-ui-camel under ASL 2.0. zoran [1] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b -- Zoran Regvart
