James jSPF have asked about the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5

• Key: LEGAL-14
• Type: Question
• Status: Closed
• Resolution: Won't Fix
• Priority: Major
• Assignee: Unassigned
• Reporter: Henri Yandell

Comments

[Sebb]

LEGAL-4 is also about Creative Commons Share Alike

LEGAL-3 is about a Creative Commons Attribution License

[Sam Ruby]

It would depend on the attribution clause and the type of artifact. Example: unmodified images under a CC-SA license would generally be OK, but Java code would generally not be OK.

[Stefano Bagnara]

We (JAMES PMC) don't need this answer anymore because we convinced the author to publish the stuff under the BSD license.

THe summary is that the yaml files I already described in LEGAL-13 was published on the www.openspf.com pages as part of their testsuite and with no clear pointer to a license.
The same files was then included in their python spf implementation based on the same spec and distributed under the Python License. The openspf.com site had a footer saying the license was CC-SA when not specified, so we thought we could have considered the yaml files as CC-SA but we didn't know if ASF policies allowed us to include the CC-SA resources as part of our test suite.

From your comments I understand we could have included them in the test suite AS IS but we couldn't redistributed modified versions of that files: right?

[Henri Yandell]

I suspect it's not right. Sam said unmodified images OK, Java code not OK. yaml files would definitely fall under the Java code world.

We need to decide if CC-SA and OSL should be Category B or generally Category X.

Closing as WONTFIX as the use case no longer exists.