Indeed, I find it wholly unthinkable that we'd include any LGPL bits in an Apache product release, even if it's an ambiguous choice of licenses. There is no ambiguity in what types of licenses are allowed in Apache releases.
The only way to do this (IMO, I'm not VP, Legal) is to make clear that we are licensing the unmodified graphic as CC-SA in our release. If someone wants to include a note elsewhere in the release pointing to the original source of the PNG, that's fine. Please be sure this is noted on your project lists so your mentors can track it as well. - Shane Niclas Hedhman wrote on 8/26/16 10:25 PM: > 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 >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
