License question...

[spyhunter99]

org\jboss\pressgang\pressgang-jdocbook-style\3.0.0

org\jboss\pressgang\pressgang-xslt-ns\3.0.0

I'm looking for the licensing of the content of the above referenced jars. It's basically a few images and some xslt files used for documentation generation. I've made some customized ones that I wanted to use on an apache project, but since it's apache, I can only actually use it if its apache license compatible. There's no license file in them so should I assume that it is unlicensed?

[jaredmorgs]

spyhunter99 wrote:

org\jboss\pressgang\pressgang-jdocbook-style\3.0.0

org\jboss\pressgang\pressgang-xslt-ns\3.0.0

I'm looking for the licensing of the content of the above referenced jars. It's basically a few images and some xslt files used for documentation generation. I've made some customized ones that I wanted to use on an apache project, but since it's apache, I can only actually use it if its apache license compatible. There's no license file in them so should I assume that it is unlicensed?

Please take a look at the github repo at github.com/pressgang/pressgang-tools

There is no mention of the license, so perhaps the devs could confirm. I'm not sure if the work just inherits the jboss.org license or not.

We should make this clear in the jar files though, so thanks for bringing this up.

[spyhunter99]

Basically, I customized the content from the jar to change the URL from www.jboss.org on the page headers to something more appropriate for the project. Obviously a small change, but before I can commit to an apache repo I need some kind of clarification on this. Thanks for helping

[jaredmorgs]

Hi again spyhunter11

I've asked about the licensing arrangements jboss.org projects have. It turns out that each project sets the license they want to use.

One of my colleagues pointed out that pressgang-tools/pom.xml at master · pressgang/pressgang-tools · GitHub suggests that we have chosen LGPL as the licence type by proxy because of a reused pom config file.

I'm happy to leave this licence as is if it means you can reuse the XSLT jars in your Apache project.

If it doesn't allow you to do that, lets work together on selecting a licence that allows maximum flexibility for projects to consume and correctly attribute the work in PressGang.

Cheers

Jared

[spyhunter99]

Jared

Sorry I didn't see your reply. LGPL unfortunately isn't compatible with ASF and therefore I can commit modifications to it to an ASF repo. At least that's my understanding. The license question is posted here: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

[mikejang]

Hi Jared,

Are you still open to selecting a different license? I am in a situation similar to spyhunter99.

[spyhunter99]

ping, still waiting on a response on this one

[jaredmorgs]

@spyhunter99 and @Mike_Jang I too didn't see notifications about this until I came into the Jive portal for another task that I did get notification for.

Circumstances have changed for me and I can no longer commit to work on this project. In truth, this project is languishing from lack of community volunteer support.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of this news, particularly considering you had to wait so long for such an underwhelming answer.