Skip to content

Legal provenance

This page is the published summary. The full audit — every suite we opened, its license, and the decision — is compliance/LEGAL.md in a clone of the repository. IETF Appendix A notices live in compliance/THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md.

Rules we followed

  1. Tests never depend on the network or on a third-party package for data.
  2. We copy a suite only if it is clearly MIT, BSD, Apache-2.0, or IETF Code Components, and the copy is worth the notice burden.
  3. We do not copy CC BY-NC-SA, “copy but do not modify” spec text, or W3C Test Suite License tests.
  4. Otherwise we recreate the rule with new names, order, and cardinality, and we cite the section URL.

Official MIT / BSD / Apache suites that we did vendor live under compliance/data/ as catalog JSON. License texts are in compliance/vendor/. Original extras stay "provenance": "original-work".

Suites we looked at

Suite License Decision
nst/JSONTestSuite MIT Vendored (jts-*).
yaml/yaml-test-suite MIT Vendored (yts-*).
YAML spec examples “copy, do not modify” Not copied.
toml-lang/toml-test MIT Vendored (toml-1.0.0-*, toml-1.1.0-*).
kawanet/msgpack-test-suite MIT Vendored (mps-*).
RFC 7049 / 8949 Appendix A IETF Code Components (Revised BSD) Encodings used, with the BSD notice.
cbor-wg/cbor-test-vectors BSD-2-Clause Vendored (cbor-wg-*).
amazon-ion/ion-tests Apache-2.0 Vendored (ion-good-*, ion-bad-*).
MongoDB BSON corpus CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US Not copied. Recreated under compliance/data/bson/.
dmitry-ra/ubjson-test-suite No OSI license Not copied. Recreated under compliance/data/ubjson/.
W3C XML tests W3C Test Suite License / 3-clause BSD XML is out of scope.
protobuf conformance/ BSD-style Legal, but it is a runner protocol. Not vendored.
Apache Avro tests Apache-2.0 Legal. Primitives rewritten from the spec.

How a recreated case differs from a spec listing

A YAML spec listing might show First occurrence: &anchor Foo. We write:

first: &harbor kelp
second: *harbor

Same rule (an alias refers to the most recent matching anchor). Different identifiers, different cardinality, different surrounding document. That is the “legal way to recreate data” this project committed to.

A FAIL is our reading of a cited section against one library build. It is not a statement that a vendor is out of compliance with a contract.