Brett Porter wrote:
On 03/08/2007, at 3:23 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
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?
That translation (explanation?) is *far* easier to understand than the
URL you pointed to.
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.
The current set of patches are already applied.
We'll have to kinda/sorta undo them.
--
- Joakim Erdfelt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source Software (OSS) Developer
