[oasis-open-projects/administration] License OSLC OP sample code under BSD-3-Clause (#18)

Andrii Berezovskyi

Dear Chet,


Thank you for your reply. The LICENSE files were missing precisely because we were awaiting for your reply. I have now merged two license files for the Apache License v2.0 (as per OSLC OP charter) and opened two PGB ballots:





To be clear, we abandon the idea of dual-licensing OP code. We will consider adding a COPYING file to the repos to retain the copyright notices of the code reused by us, including Lyo (if you know a way to generate this file for all transitive dependencies of a Java project, we’ll appreciate a pointer).


Thank you all for your help!




From: Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@...>
Date: Wednesday, 18 August 2021, W33 at 16:37
To: oasis-open-projects/administration <reply+ACYUWROWNWZVHJJ6ET6SDFN7EDVQFEVBNHHC5W3MVY@...>
Cc: oasis-open-projects/administration <administration@...>, Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>, Jamie Clark <jamie.clark@...>, Claudia Rauch <claudia.rauch@...>
Subject: Re: [oasis-open-projects/administration] License OSLC OP sample code under BSD-3-Clause (#18)


Hi Andrew,

Again, sorry for the delay. I have gone back through the tickets to sort out the issues and I think I understand now. To recap the situation:

- Eclipse Lyo code is developed at EF in a project that Jim and Andrew lead. The Lyo code is licensed under EPL 1.0 or EDL (essentially BSD-3 Simple). The choice of which lies with the user.

- You all reuse the Lyo code in the code developed in OSLC sysml-oslc-server and refimpl repositories. These repos need to be licensed.
    - I note, with respect to those repos, that neither one has a license declared in a LICENSE.md file. That's a separate problem to resolve. I address it below.  

- You note that the Lyo code must retain its license as EPL v1.0 or EDL (essentially a BSD-3).

- The code/config done by Jad and Jim is work of the OASIS Open Project, under our rules, so that must fall under the license selected for the repo (once one is selected and declared).

The problem that I was having came from characterizing the request as 'dual licensing.' If I'm correct, a better way to describe the situation is that, in the code itself, you need to be able to associate the correct license with the corresponding parts of the code.

If this is correct, then I think the case for the Lyo code is resolved: the license statement that came with the code stays with the code. Anyone reading it will find it and will know - aha; this is reused code and here's the license that applies to it.

For the code that the OP is producing, it is licensed under whatever OASIS-approved license (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process/#repository-specification-licenses) you approved to govern your work. That list includes both BSD-3 and EPL v1.0 and v2.0. The way we associate code with a license, both to advise contributors of their obligations up front, and to advise users of its terms later, is by naming the license in the codebase in a LICENSE.md file.

The issue here is that you've set those repos up without declaring a license that applies in a LICENSE.md file. Because you have a small group of contributors, you, Jim, and Jad, I think you can go back and add LICENSE.md files to the repos with their consent, declaring either EPL or BSD. To make it clear what license applies where, ideally the repo(s) should be grouped by applicable license.  That's what our rules call Group Releases:  https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process/#releases-and-group-releases-applicable-licenses.  From a rules point of view, your approved output is drawn from a group of related repos.  From a user point of view, they can find each license by self-help by just finding the LICENSE.md tags.

It might be a good idea, as a courtesy, to add a statement at the top of the relevant LICENSE files stating that portions of the code are reused from the Eclipse Lyo project and their licenses apply to that code. It's not required, so long as you authors have concluded that it's OK to freely re-use that code (due to its open source licenses), but it seems like better form and more polite to give attribution.

Also, the PGB should pass a motion approving those repos as whatever license.

Declaring the repo to be x license doesn't override the Lyo license. That might have been where some of the concern came from. Whoever pulls the Lyo code into the OP repo takes the responsibility for it being OK to use in the project under its license.

To recap:

- Lyo code keeps its associated license statement

- Approve the license you want to use for the sysml- and refimpl repos and declare them in LICENSE.md files in the directory with the README file.

- Add the license to the OP-produced code.

Does this address the problem?






On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 7:46 AM Andrew Berezovskyi <notifications@...> wrote:

@jamienewlaw @chet-ensign @OASIS-OP-Admin another reminder given that the OSLC Core spec just moved to OASIS Standard call for consent phase. We'd like to announce at least the first repo in question (reference implementation) with the OSLC Core OASIS Standard when it is published (provided a call concludes successfully, of course). Please prioritize assigning license to oslc-op/refimpl if you can. Apache license that is used by the rest of the Open Project is fine with us, whatever helps us finalize the release.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS or Android.



Chet Ensign

Chief Technical Community Steward





+1 201-341-1393