From: Keith R. B. <kbe...@bb...> - 2007-10-29 16:41:21
|
All - Aperture may be alpha, but it's already extremely functional. I'm =20 working on a project that will be incorporating Aperture into its =20 distribution. We want to make sure we don't get into any licensing =20 problems, so I have some questions: 1) We found that one library, DFKIUtils2.jar, is licensed under GPL. =20 Is this the only one? I noticed that DFKI is one of the sponsors of =20 Aperture. Is it possible they could reconsider their decision to put =20 DFKIUtils2 under the GPL? 2) There were some jar files for which we could not find any license =20 files associated with them: osgi.core-4.0.jar org.semweb4j.rdf2go.api_4.4.7.jar org.semweb4j.rdf2go.impl.base_4.4.6.jar org.openrdf.rdf2go4.4.1.2682.jar osgi.core-4.0.jar Can you say what are their licenses? 3) There are some jar files contain licenses other than the standard =20 ones. Do any of these licenses limit our ability to freely distribute =20 everything together as does a GPL license? bcmail-jdk14-132.jar: (Bouncy Castle) bcprov-jdk14-132.jar: (Bouncy Castle) demork-2.0.jar: (DFKI) nrlvalidator.jar P: nrlvalidator-UNKNOWN-VER.jar: (DFKI) openrdf-sesame-2.0-SNAPSHOT-onejar.jar: (DFKI) pdfbox-0.7.3.jar: (pdfbox.org) slf4j-api-1.3.0.jar: (QOS.ch) slf4j-api-simple-1.3.0.jar: (QOS.ch) winlaf-0.5.1.jar: (winlaf.dev.java.net) Thanks for any information you can offer. Regards, Keith Bennett P.S. In case it's helpful, here is what I believe to be a complete =20 list of the jar files and their license types: jcl104-over-slf4j-1.3.0.jar: ? org.openrdf.rdf2go-4.4.1.2682.jar: ? org.semweb4j.rdf2go.api_4.4.7.jar: ? org.semweb4j.rdf2go.impl.base_4.4.6.jar: ? osgi.core-4.0.jar: ? org.apache.commons.codec_1.2.0.jar: Apache org.apache.commons.httpclient-3.0.0.rc2.jar: Apache poi-3.0-FINAL.jar: Apache fontbox-0.1.0-dev.jar: BSD ical4jcvs20061019.jar: Custom: (Ben Fortuna) bcmail-jdk14-132.jar: Custom (Bouncy Castle) bcprov-jdk14-132.jar: Custom (Bouncy Castle) demork-2.0.jar: Custom (DFKI) nrlvalidator.jar: Custom (DFKI) openrdf-sesame-2.0-SNAPSHOT-onejar.jar: Custom (DFKI) pdfbox-0.7.3.jar: Custom (pdfbox.org) slf4j-api-1.3.0.jar: Custom (QOS.ch) slf4j-api-simple-1.3.0.jar: Custom (QOS.ch) winlaf-0.5.1.jar: Custom (winlaf.dev.java.net) DFKIUtils2.jar: GPL htmlparser-1.6.jar: LGPL metadata-extractor-2.4.0-beta-1.jar: Public Domain mail-1.4.jar: Sun (Entitlement for Software) activation-1.0.2-upd2.jar: Sun Binary |
From: <ant...@gm...> - 2007-10-29 17:19:08
|
Keith R. Bennett pisze: > All - > > Aperture may be alpha, but it's already extremely functional. I'm > working on a project that will be incorporating Aperture into its > distribution. We want to make sure we don't get into any licensing > problems, so I have some questions: > > 1) We found that one library, DFKIUtils2.jar, is licensed under GPL. > Is this the only one? I noticed that DFKI is one of the sponsors of > Aperture. Is it possible they could reconsider their decision to put > DFKIUtils2 under the GPL? That's a bug. Andreas Lauer - the original author of DFKIUtils told me the license should be Lesser GPL - LGPL. I have fixed the license file. > 2) There were some jar files for which we could not find any license > files associated with them: > > osgi.core-4.0.jar As stated on http://www2.osgi.org/Download/Release4V41. "Companion code to the OSGi specifications is available under the following license. Apache License, Version 2.0 ... " So it's apache. > org.semweb4j.rdf2go.api_4.4.7.jar > org.semweb4j.rdf2go.impl.base_4.4.6.jar these two fall under rdf2go-license.txt that is BSD > org.openrdf.rdf2go4.4.1.2682.jar This one falls under the same license as whole sesame i.e. openrdf-license.txt - BSD. > > Can you say what are their licenses? > > 3) There are some jar files contain licenses other than the standard > ones. Do any of these licenses limit our ability to freely distribute > everything together as does a GPL license? > > bcmail-jdk14-132.jar: (Bouncy Castle) > bcprov-jdk14-132.jar: (Bouncy Castle) That's MIT > demork-2.0.jar: (DFKI) That's BSD > nrlvalidator.jar P: nrlvalidator-UNKNOWN-VER.jar: (DFKI) NRLValidator doesn't have any versions indeed. I guess it might not be a bad idea to tag some state of the NRL validator as nrlvalidator-0.1.jar in the Nepomuk Repository. It is licensed under the same license as whole Nepomuk output i.e. MIT. > openrdf-sesame-2.0-SNAPSHOT-onejar.jar: (DFKI) This one is not DFKI, but Aduna. See openrdf-license.txt (BSD) > pdfbox-0.7.3.jar: (pdfbox.org) BSD > slf4j-api-1.3.0.jar: (QOS.ch) > slf4j-api-simple-1.3.0.jar: (QOS.ch) both MIT license > winlaf-0.5.1.jar: (winlaf.dev.java.net) BSD > Thanks for any information you can offer. > > Regards, > Keith Bennett > > P.S. In case it's helpful, here is what I believe to be a complete > list of the jar files and their license types: MIT: > jcl104-over-slf4j-1.3.0.jar: ? > slf4j-api-1.3.0.jar: Custom (QOS.ch) > slf4j-api-simple-1.3.0.jar: Custom (QOS.ch) > nrlvalidator.jar: Custom (DFKI) > bcmail-jdk14-132.jar: Custom (Bouncy Castle) > bcprov-jdk14-132.jar: Custom (Bouncy Castle) BSD: > org.openrdf.rdf2go-4.4.1.2682.jar: ? > org.semweb4j.rdf2go.api_4.4.7.jar: ? > org.semweb4j.rdf2go.impl.base_4.4.6.jar: ? > fontbox-0.1.0-dev.jar: BSD > ical4jcvs20061019.jar: BSD: (Ben Fortuna) (Not custom, to my eye) > demork-2.0.jar: BSD (DFKI) > openrdf-sesame-2.0-SNAPSHOT-onejar.jar: BSD (Aduna) (NOT DFKI) > pdfbox-0.7.3.jar: BSD (pdfbox.org) (not custom) > winlaf-0.5.1.jar: BSD (winlaf.dev.java.net) (not custom) Apache: > org.apache.commons.codec_1.2.0.jar: Apache > org.apache.commons.httpclient-3.0.0.rc2.jar: Apache > poi-3.0-FINAL.jar: Apache > osgi.core-4.0.jar: Apache LGPL: > DFKIUtils2.jar: LGPL > htmlparser-1.6.jar: LGPL Software used by the grace of the Sun... > mail-1.4.jar: Sun (Entitlement for Software) > activation-1.0.2-upd2.jar: Sun Binary Public domain > metadata-extractor-2.4.0-beta-1.jar: Public Domain All in all, we've tried to avoid viral licenses. You may safely ship all aperture dependencies with your software. (Of course this is all to my non-lawyer eyes). If you have a lawyer at hand, letting him have a look at this might not be a bad idea. Christiaan? Leo? any comments? Antoni Myłka ant...@gm... |
From: Keith R. B. <kbe...@bb...> - 2007-10-29 19:43:49
|
Antoni - Thank you so much for your speedy and thorough attention to this issue. You've been extremely helpful. - Keith |
From: Leo S. <leo...@df...> - 2007-10-30 13:48:26
|
It was Antoni Myłka who said at the right time 29.10.2007 18:18 the following words: > All in all, we've tried to avoid viral licenses. You may safely ship all > aperture dependencies with your software. (Of course this is all to my > non-lawyer eyes). yep, no jar should be viral, but you are right to check yourself to be sure. > If you have a lawyer at hand, letting him have a look > at this might not be a bad idea. Christiaan? Leo? any comments? > yep - the license files should be in the /lib directory together with the projects (and they are there now, I see, thx!) best Leo > Antoni Myłka > ant...@gm... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Aperture-devel mailing list > Ape...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aperture-devel > > -- ____________________________________________________ DI Leo Sauermann http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122 P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +49 631 20575-116 D-67663 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 20575-102 Germany Mail: leo...@df... Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 ____________________________________________________ |