The licencing issue is not clear with redistributing a skinned version of Spark. I know it’s Apache 2.0 which means there is no problem there, but in the Readme for 2.6.3 it states
Spark also contains Open Source software from third-parties.
Licensing terms for those components is specifically noted in the relevant source files.
Spark contains icons which are free for non-commercial use,are licensed from INCORS GmbH or owned by Jive Software.
All icons and images in Spark owned by INCORS GmbH or Jive Software are provided under the following license agreement:
with some text following. Can anyone point to the ‘relevant source files’ and confirm that there is no issue redistributing the skinned Spark.
this was a discussion during the 2.6.3. Different elements in Spark have different licenses. The core features are all Apache. Some plugins need GPL code. These can not run without Spark, but Spark can run without them. To my understanding, skining is a core feature under Apache 2.0. and you can do any changes. The GPL plugin useridle is under GPL and any change has to contributed back to useridle and to the community.
To answer your question: I would distribute the skinned Spark and bundle the unchanged GPL plugin. Since Spark can run without useridle it’s license is not “infecting” the Apache 2.0 license
Legal statement: I am not attorney and the expressed understanding is a personal one that is not an official statement of Jive Software or the Igniterealtime team.
Mmm, the Spark distro has a similar readme, with one particular clause
Jive Software grants to you a nonexclusive, non-sublicensable right to use the icons royalty-free as part of Spark.
Can anyone clearly say whether this totally prohibits a skinned Spark from being distributed to our customers. We are not providing any sub-licence to use Spark, so I don’t see that it is a problem, but I am not a lawyer either.
Like David Albeck in the Openfire discussion, we know how to conform to LGPL and Apache, both of those are very simply redistributable. It would seem strange that there are some icons in an Apache licenced redistributable product that restrict that product to being non-redistributable.
