14 messages in org.apache.legal-discussRe: Maven repository issues [Was: Cre...
FromSent OnAttachments
Henri YandellMay 29, 2008 1:06 am 
Stefano BagnaraMay 29, 2008 1:17 am 
Assaf ArkinMay 29, 2008 10:53 am 
Henri YandellMay 29, 2008 12:10 pm 
Stefano BagnaraMay 29, 2008 12:35 pm 
David JencksMay 29, 2008 12:47 pm 
Craig L RussellMay 29, 2008 2:38 pm 
Gilles ScokartMay 30, 2008 1:04 am 
Stefano BagnaraMay 30, 2008 1:47 am 
Assaf ArkinMay 30, 2008 2:50 am 
sebbMay 30, 2008 2:51 am 
Stefano BagnaraMay 30, 2008 3:33 am 
Assaf ArkinMay 30, 2008 4:33 am 
Gilles ScokartMay 30, 2008 4:35 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
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:Henri Yandell (bay@apache.org)
Date:May 29, 2008 12:10:11 pm
List:org.apache.legal-discuss

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Assaf Arkin <ark@intalio.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apa@bago.org> wrote:

An official statement from the ASF that says that we can safely include pom.xml with no license headers (from the maven central repository or even any repository) in our redistributable would really help our next releases (Apache JAMES PMC). Some of our PMC member are convinced (and I don't have knowledge to say they are wrong) that even the most simple pom automatically generated by maven when installing an artifact with no pom (so that it only contains the artifactId, groupId and version) is copyrightable.

A lot of people trip on that. You don't have to file for copyright on a work, you get it by merely creating the work, which almost sounds like everything you create would be protected by copyright.

The issue, I think, is the next step in that - if it is copyrightable, then we need to license that. At least I'm reading this as the JAMES PMC having discussion about publishing their own poms, not whether they will depend on 3rd party jars without a license on the top. Maybe I'm wrong though :)

Except, not everything is copyrightable, it has to have some creativity in it.

This particular case is not copyrightable, and slapping a copyright statement on it won't change that.

I'm hesitant to say "it's not copyrightable" as I don't think I'm qualified to determine that. It doesn't seem like there's a lot of creativity in the normal pom file (I'm not sure if you can embed any kind of scripting in it... maybe Ant scripts?).

But there's a separate issue to consider. If I'm serving you a large collection of files, how would you know all the files there are either under an agreeable license or not copyrighted to being with? Manually checking every file is tedious, and automated tools don't have good judgment call as to what is or is not copyrighted.

So the issue is not just legal but also technical.

That's a general problem for any user - how to determine the license of their 3rd party works. There are solutions out there - commercial and open source.

With the Maven repository, the jar files often contain LICENSE and NOTICE files now - I always check the META-INF of an unknown jar for its licensing nowadays (to the point of having a script for it :) ).

Hen