Nothing to add. We are ok. Il giorno mer 12 feb 2020 alle ore 10:04 Zoran Regvart <zo...@regvart.com> ha scritto:
> 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 >
