IIRC, some of the sources are under ASL 2.0. I think I have seen some
source headers with MIT and some with Common Public License.
Rahul
On 28/02/2009 4:18 p.m., Abel Muiño wrote:
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
No it's not the case.I often find Apache processes heavy,, but if in
eclipse
you have to validate all dependencies I better understand why its quality
is
lower day after day. All teams are probably checking their dependencies
instead of writting tests.
I think there is a misconception about the Eclipse Process and how heavy it
is.
We have checked a sheer number of dependencies and, so far, the only problem
is with Plexus. The ip-team takes care of everything for us, so it is just a
matter of getting in the mental state to file a bug report stating what you
will use.
However, the case of the embedder is a very speciall one, given the number
of dependencies required from so many different sources, and the lack of
information about its licensing terms or process in a few of them.
The intent of the Eclipse Process is that commercial tools can be built on
top of eclipse projects and, given that the Plexus license page [1] states
that "No project license is defined for this project.", I can understand
that the legal team is worried.
[1] http://plexus.codehaus.org/license.html
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Abel Muiño<[email protected]> wrote:
Ok, sorry for the noise then... I thoght that Apache would somehow review
the
code from third parties before distributing it (that's the Eclipse way).
Brian E Fox wrote:
Plexus is a codehaus component, so Apache would most likely not have
these
checks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Abel Muiño [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Code provenance checks for Plexus components
The Eclipse legal team is having a hard time trying to confirm code
provenance for the plexus components required by the 3.0 maven embedder.
I suppose that the Apache Foundation has already done similar provenance
checks before distributing the components... so can you please help us
with
the Eclipse review?
Specifically, the legal team has asked:
···
For example, it would be helpful to know whether Plexus project members
and
contributors are asked to acknowledge anything regarding their
contribution in
an e-mail (e.g. I wrote the code, it's mine, and I'm contributing it to
Plexus
for distribution under the Apache 1.1 or Apache 2.0 license).
···
Does such thing (or anything similar) exist? Does Apache keep some
records
regarding the 3rd party checks it performs before a release?
Thanks!
-----
http://www.linkedin.com/in/amuino Abel Muiño Vizcaino -
http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Code-provenance-checks-for-Plexus-components-tp22251436p22251436.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
-----
http://www.linkedin.com/in/amuino Abel Muiño Vizcaino -
http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Code-provenance-checks-for-Plexus-components-tp22251436p22252875.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
