On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Sam Ruby wrote:
> This issue has come up before. This time, let's flatten it. > > In two weeks, there is a board meeting. At that time, I would like to > be able to report that the contents of the Maven repository conforms to > the policies of the Apache Software Foundation. I'm not sure I understand why the ibiblio repository breaks any rules/licences. It's only if an ASF project building from Maven/Centipede were to use an LGPL project from it, or if the ibiblio repository is seen as 'run' by the ASF. The latter is currently probably true though, so ASF would be liable for it having Sun licences on, but there's nothing to stop LGPL code being redistributed(?) as long as it follows the LGPL/GPL rules for it. > Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License > (the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following > public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's > concurrency package. BSD/MIT? Why not all public-domain code? > Licenses clearly not conforming to the ASF's policies for distribution: > LGPL, GPL, Sun's Binary Code License. What about the other Sun licences? SISSL and SPL? Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
