[Cosmo-dev] web UI license

[Ted Leung]

On May 29, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Nicola Piccinini wrote:

>
>> If you look at section 4 of <http://www.apache.org/licenses/ 
>> LICENSE-2.0.html>, you'll see the total set of requirements for  
>> redistribution according to the ASL 2.0, which mostly has to do  
>> with the notice files for changed, or attribution notices.
>
> yes, I had read that document but, of course, it's written in a  
> legalese language and is very general so (for me) it isn't easy to  
> well comprehend and to adapt in a concrete situation.
>
>> You could either embed this information in the source file(s) of  
>> the dojo built javascript,
>
> my doubt here is that the notice is a comment and the comment are  
> removed by dojo build system.
>
>> or you could modify the application's about box to include those  
>> notices (actually this is something that we need to look at for  
>> the Cosmo source base as well).
>
> this could work. Suppose now that our web-application has some  
> tabs, every tabs with a specific functionality. One of this tab is  
> for calendars and uses a derivative work of your web UI.
> To satisfy license requirements we could add another tab (call it  
> "About", or "Credits" or "License" or something else) with a  
> section with, schematically, this sort of statements:
>
> - the calendar UI is a derivative work of Cosmo web UI (with links  
> to Cosmo web site and to WebSVN),
> - the Cosmo source code is released under the term of Apache  
> License 2.0 (with link to license),
> - a list of the modified files,
> - optionally different license terms for the modification.
>
> For what concern the source code of other modules (for example for  
> the functionality in other tabs), it could be released with a  
> different license, both "open" and "closed". This holds even if  
> these modules refer to functions in cosmo namespace (for example  
> cosmo.util.html for creating select options ;-) or the derivative  
> work refers to functions in these modules.
>
> In the server side we'll use a "pure" Cosmo 0.6.1 release with a  
> bridge between it and our application. Anyway, as neither Cosmo nor  
> the bridge are distributed, nothing is requested by the Cosmo license.
>
> This is my interpretation of the license but, sorry for that, I'm  
> not sure so I prefer to annoying you again rather than make some  
> mistakes.

Both of the suggestions that I made came from Cliff Schmidt, Apache's  
VP for Legal Affairs...

Ted