 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
14 messages in org.apache.legal-discussRe: Maven repository issues [Was: Cre...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Henri Yandell | May 29, 2008 1:06 am | |
| Stefano Bagnara | May 29, 2008 1:17 am | |
| Assaf Arkin | May 29, 2008 10:53 am | |
| Henri Yandell | May 29, 2008 12:10 pm | |
| Stefano Bagnara | May 29, 2008 12:35 pm | |
| David Jencks | May 29, 2008 12:47 pm | |
| Craig L Russell | May 29, 2008 2:38 pm | |
| Gilles Scokart | May 30, 2008 1:04 am | |
| Stefano Bagnara | May 30, 2008 1:47 am | |
| Assaf Arkin | May 30, 2008 2:50 am | |
| sebb | May 30, 2008 2:51 am | |
| Stefano Bagnara | May 30, 2008 3:33 am | |
| Assaf Arkin | May 30, 2008 4:33 am | |
| Gilles Scokart | May 30, 2008 4:35 am |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | Re: Maven repository issues [Was: Creative Commons Attribution License] | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Stefano Bagnara (apa...@bago.org) | |
| Date: | May 30, 2008 1:47:46 am | |
| List: | org.apache.legal-discuss | |
David Jencks ha scritto:
On May 29, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
The problem is that 99% of poms descriptor in maven central do not provide a license header and so we have to take them as "all right reserved" and ASF does not allow us to redistribute similar files.
so... 1. maybe we could encourage maven to include a "generated" comment in the poms it generates. These are surely not copyrightable, they are machine generated.
Until recent versions maven was removing the license header from the pom published (release plugin). Now it seems this issue is fixed, but this was a big problem with a late solution.
For non-generated poms presumably the pom is under the same license as the rest of the project, and the license should be mentioned in the pom licenses element.
The problem with licensing is that "Presumably" is not an appropriate word to use in a court ;-)
We should encourage maven central administrators to stop uploading poms with no license header or too restrictive licenses. Otherwise maven central is useless (not only for our case of redistribution, but also for the "standard" automatic *use* of the file).
IMHO what we can do is first of all evangelize and explain people that this *is* an issue.
A statement about this from the ASF legal team / board would be much more credible than me writing messages to the maven/repository lists (I already unsuccesfully tried).
2. I think what you are doing is somewhat questionable practice as far as maven goes. Would mvn dependency:go-offline provide sufficient offline build support?
I know that the "local stage repository" is a questionable practice, but this was a requirement from my PMC and maven did not offer a solution to this. The only alternative to this was stick to ant :-( We need to redistribute a single package that allow a maven user with no internet access to build the project with a single commmand. So dependency:go-offline is not a solution.
Stefano
--------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for official ASF policies and documents.