On 03/08/2007, at 3:23 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
While I understand the need to be vigilant on licenses in use.
I don't understand why LGPL is excluded.
And that URL you pointed to seems to makes a distinction only on
using LGPLed code.
"The following licenses must not apply to any software within an
Apache product, whether in source or binary form" (from Software
License Criteria and Categories > Category X).
And with the dozen or so licenses in use by ant and maven, how and
why is this suddenly important to archiva, but not the other projects?
In maven and ant we have jgpl'd and oddball licenses such as ...
checkstyle, clover, netrexx, jruby, judo, jython, javamail,
activation, and jai.
The key point is distribution. Ant does not distribute any of these.
Maven is in a grey area, where it downloads them (so is compliant),
but does so automatically (which makes it a few shades of grey given
it's a policy aimed at "no surprises" licensing). There's no doubt it
can be improved. Also a factor is that a lot of these predate the
policy, and the policy has a transition period which is what I linked
to.
But Archiva is doing this for the first time, in awareness of the
policy, and as it stands would have to distribute the JAR - so I
think we need to take it into consideration. Discussions about the
policy itself belong on legal-discuss - we should just deal with the
best way to apply it.
So far others have agreed with the approach outlined using a profile
- do you have any other issues with doing that?
Teody said on this thread yesterday that he was working on updates
based on the feedback Deng had given in the issue, so if that patch
looks ok too and gets applied, we'll then need to deal with this
before we can move forward with the release next week.
Cheers,
Brett
