Hi, I would recommend that we only license that under CC-SA, but you might want to point out that the media files are also available under LGPL3. The downstream user can re-apply (or swap with) the LGPL3 if they want to, as those media files are unmodified and we lay no additional claims.
Cheers Niclas On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
