On 08/01/15 16:36, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
The NOTICE file (in the Apache Taverna distribution, not inside
taverna-beanshell-activity.jar ) is presumably a prominent label.
I'm not familiar enough with what Taverna will actually ship as
binaries. Source confusion is the big issue though not the end.
In the Taverna distribution in any form there would not be a copy of the
beanshell.org jar?
If not, will the end user be aware they need to assemble it to get he
SPL code?
Note also beanshell.org says:
"""
The "cost" of this software is simply to let us know how you are using
BeanShell.
"""
which is moral obligation even if not legal. Respect for their work
means we ought to not hide that request.
I think we have several CDDL dependencies from Java XML and so, they are
also category-B. as long as they are JAR only then there is no "source
confusion".
Consider some one/some group wishing to take Taverna, modify it, add to
it, combine it with other open source stuff and publish open source.
Are they clearly aware of the implications on them by the SPL? My
opinion is that maven used to get a blank set of things, recursive
dependences and all, then it is not a clear action in response to the
cat-B. To emphais - that's my current opinion; maybe/hopefully another
mentor has more experience here - this is the first time I've had to
deal with the SPL.
Beanshell 2.0b4 (SPL/LGPL) we have only ever used it as a jar from Maven
central. You need to go to beanshell.org to find the source code manually.
Andy
PS Good catch on
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11
On 8 Jan 2015 16:05, "Andy Seaborne" <a...@apache.org> wrote:
On 08/01/15 13:03, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
So for now then, the main thing would just be to include whatever
NOTICE markings are required by the Sun Public License and use the
2.0b4 JAR as-is.
It's not just NOTICE for category-B:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
"""
By attaching a prominent label to the distribution and *requiring an
explicit action by the user* to get the reciprocally-licensed source, users
are less likely to be unaware of restrictions significantly different from
those of the Apache License.
"""
My emphasis.
Taverna may end up with processes around cat-B stuff so unless something
else requires it as well, then avoiding now saves time in the long run and
is nicer to users.
Andy
