On Tuesday 15 of March 2016 22:50:52 Richard Fontana wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 01:20:24PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > Marek Goldmann wrote: > > > > > Most probably we'll need to package OSGi Enterprise, but I'm not sure > > > about licensing of this project. > > > > > > The code itself (included in the.jar file, another story...) is ASL 2.0, > > > but if you try to download it from the website, you need to agree to this: > > > > > > http://www.osgi.org/Download/Release5?info=nothanks > > > > > > Which is no more, no less OSGi Specification License, listed as bad > > > license on the wiki: > > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses > > > > > > You can also download it directly, without the need to agree to the > > > license on the website: > > > > > > http://www.osgi.org/download/r4v42/osgi.enterprise.jar > > > http://www.osgi.org/download/r5/osgi.enterprise-5.0.0.jar > > > > > > How should we deal with it? Are we authorized to package it under ASL 2.0? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Hi, I am unable to find any response to this message in mail archives. > > > > The Y2016 update: > > > > * How have we dealt with this? > > * Are we OK to package the osgi.enterprise now? > > * Do we depend on osgi.enterprise namespace somewhere > > (Fedora/CentOS/RHEL) > > * if that is not Fedora friendly license, is it OK to depend on it > > upstream? > > Do you need to package anything other than the code that's under the > Apache License? We need to package the code from osgi.enterprise-5.0.0.jar, at least to the best of my knowledge. That source jar file contains Apache LICENSE file, and about.html with: ... Notices Implementation of certain elements of the Content may be subject to third party intellectual property rights, including without limitation, patent rights (such a third party may or may not be a member of the OSGi Alliance). The OSGi Alliance and its members are not responsible and shall not be held responsible in any manner for identifying or failing to identify any or all such third party intellectual property rights. ... The other thing is that it does not seem to be the right place to download sources from OSGi, but rather like some build-product sources (side effect of maven build?), but I'm not sure. So trying to find authoritative sources leads to [1], but that forces me to "Accept": "OSGi Specification License, Version 2.0." [1] Marek posted this before: http://www.osgi.org/Download/Release5?info=nothanks Pavel _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
