Bug 57862 - Unclear XSD files license
Summary: Unclear XSD files license
Alias: None
Product: POI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: POI Overall (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: POI Developers List
Depends on:
Reported: 2015-04-27 16:39 UTC by gil
Modified: 2016-03-13 20:10 UTC (History)
0 users


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description gil 2015-04-27 16:39:56 UTC
Fedora is a popular distribution of the Linux operating system, and we wish to include the latest version of Apache POI [3] in our OS. Fedora only contains Free and Open Source licensed works.

I tried to contact ETSI for the terms of the license for the XSD files
[1] [2],
included in Apache Poi [3]. but until now I have not received answers.

These XML schema files appear to have come directly from the standard documents, and look to be copyrighted by ETSI, but the copyright license terms [4] on those schema files is unclear.

thanks in advance

[1] http://uri.etsi.org/01903/v1.3.2/XAdES.xsd
[2] http://uri.etsi.org/01903/v1.4.1/XAdESv141.xsd
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146670 
[4] http://www.etsi.org/index.php/terms-of-use
Comment 1 Nick Burch 2015-04-27 17:52:49 UTC
The XSDs, as part of the OOXML specification, are covered by the Microsoft Open Specification Promise - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/openspecifications/dn646765

You can find the discussions on the legal list about the licensing from back when the OOXML support was added:

And some specific bits in this email:

Without knowing the Fedora rules on what is and isn't considered Free/Open, I can't comment on if that's good enough for you, only that the ASF legal affairs committee have approved them for inclusion in and distribution by an Apache project
Comment 2 Tom Callaway 2015-04-27 19:19:52 UTC
I guess the real question here is whether these files can be modified or not. That's not clear from the links you sent. I'd agree that they seem to be freely distributable, but without permission to modify, they're neither Free or Open Source.

If these files were purely documentation, this might not matter, but the way these files are being used to power the software means that they (imho) need to be FOSS.
Comment 3 Nick Burch 2015-04-27 21:20:18 UTC
Currently, we use XMLBeans to automatically generate Java source code based on the XSDs, then compile and use that resulting code. That intermediate source code is open source, available, and can be changed (if you really want to - normally fixing things in the generating XMLBeans code would be recommended if there's a bug!)

Unmodifiable standards definitions are a reasonably common thing. For example, I believe a number of projects distributed in Fedora include the EPSG geodetic parameter dataset which has restrictions on modification. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-183 for the discussions we at the ASF had about incorporating that. Maybe the Fedora rules for that (or similar) could be used as a guide here too?
Comment 4 Dominik Stadler 2016-03-13 20:10:00 UTC
As far as I see there not much else that we need/can provide right now here, if this is not yet resolved the discussion should probably go to the dev-mailing list at dev@poi.apache.org until we know if there are changes required at all.