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-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Reply via email to