 | 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: | Craig L Russell (Crai...@Sun.COM) | |
| Date: | May 29, 2008 2:38:25 pm | |
| List: | org.apache.legal-discuss | |
On May 29, 2008, at 1:06 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org> wrote:
Craig L Russell ha scritto:
I don't have any problem with depending on a CC licensed artifact, but I'm troubled by the notion that an artifact would be installed into a Maven repository by "not the author".
I had big issues with the fact that pom.xml in maven repository have no license headers. Our PMC voted down redistributing some of them because of this.
It should be enforced that any uploaded pom.xml include a license header to specify the license for the pom itself.
Unfortunately most pom.xml in the current repository do not have the license header and we don't even know who hold the copyright for that files, AFAIK.
Apart from the description of the project, which is usually copied from the project website if it's even there, I wonder how much copyright there is in a pom.xml. All of the xml tags and attributes are a standard enforced by the Maven tool, so that leaves the data in between the xml - namely urls, people's names, project name/versions and some small level of configuration (ie: numbers and file paths).
A different world than even a build.xml where basic building blocks are used as a set of instructions.
If a project ProjectA creates a pom for a different project ProjectB in order to publish it in a Maven repository, ProjectA can license the pom in any way it wants to (presumably the Apache license if one of our own projects does it) and the contents of the pom tell the user what the license is for the artifact from ProjectB.
Plus, the artifact will often contain LICENSE and NOTICE files. If there is a license for the pom itself, it's under the control of whoever published the artifact.
This area is one reason I think it's best for the author of an artifact to explicitly publish it to a Maven repository, so we don't get "dueling publishers" with their own versions of poms etc.
Craig
Hen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:Crai...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!