Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Seems to me that there is limited utility to being able to parse the URI, and that the real key is having meta-data with which to assemble it. But others don't seem to agree with that view. They want to parse semantic information from the URI. The semantic information is there in the URL, org. project. version, artifact type, name, release type etc. People WILL try to parse it. I think it would be a Good Idea to make it easy to parse at least the major pieces into discrete chunks. Assuming most people will simply replace / with - or _ the issue is not one off URL length or URL readability, it seems to be mostly about the browseablity of of directories. In other words have all the apache projects under the apache dir, or under subdirs of apache. I think the convience of knowing exactly where org, project, and version start and stop is worth the cost to browseablity. R, Nick
Re: click through license support?
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/11/2003 01:31:13 AM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 15/11/2003 10:00:07 PM: Tim Anderson wrote: ... A tool can 'screen scrape' the redirected page, prompt the user to accept the license and only download if the license is accepted, If the tool is made to work like a web browser, ie show the pages and then download when the user clicks on the button, IMHO it would be perfectly acceptable. But still illegal. I still don't understand why. I mean, if: 1- the program opens the browser on the product download page 2 - the user does the download steps as usual 3 - the program gets the downloaded artifact from the local download location Why would we be breaking the license? The only difference between this approach and the usual one is that the download location is linked. We've been down this road and are working with Sun on a solution. We have (had?) a tool that would do the above in Maven ages ago. Yes, I'm aware of that. See http://maven.apache.org/sun-licensing-journey.html Very good that you have this page, thanks for the pointer. For example, the JavaMail v1.3 BCL has Supplemental License Terms which state in Point 2. : ...Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and distribute the Software in binary code form only, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Java applets or applications (Programs), (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software. I don't think a repository for distributing jars fits the requirements for (i) or (ii), and may possibly break (iii). And I don't think the ASF would like to agree to (vi). -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
[Fwd: Re: click through license support?]
Sent this to nicola directly by mistake. Nicola is your mail client overwritting the reply-to? -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society ---BeginMessage--- On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 09:31, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 15/11/2003 10:00:07 PM: Tim Anderson wrote: ... A tool can 'screen scrape' the redirected page, prompt the user to accept the license and only download if the license is accepted, If the tool is made to work like a web browser, ie show the pages and then download when the user clicks on the button, IMHO it would be perfectly acceptable. But still illegal. I still don't understand why. I mean, if: 1- the program opens the browser on the product download page 2 - the user does the download steps as usual 3 - the program gets the downloaded artifact from the local download location Why would we be breaking the license? The only difference between this approach and the usual one is that the download location is linked. The fact is it doesn't matter what we think. I asked the board and they said work it out with Sun. Sun doesn't actually care if we put the JavaMail jar on ibiblio and they would never take legal action but we still can't put it there. I don't see any problem with the scraper approach either but it contravenes what Sun intends for users and so we need their express permission. At any rate we can't do it any other way so says the board. So it is moot what we think or that it is actually reasonable, we are dealing with lawyers who could turn something simple like this into an incomprehensible mess. I have seen a drop in replacement for JavaMail and I would like to put that in the repository and find other replacements like it. Sun isn't going to out of their way to help us unless there is an extreme amount of pressure placed on them and they get some good PR out of it. We've been down this road and are working with Sun on a solution. We have (had?) a tool that would do the above in Maven ages ago. Yes, I'm aware of that. See http://maven.apache.org/sun-licensing-journey.html Very good that you have this page, thanks for the pointer. -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society ---End Message---
Re: click through license support?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I don't think a repository for distributing jars fits the requirements for (i) or (ii), and may possibly break (iii). And I don't think the ASF would like to agree to (vi). Well, IIUC it's because it's a jar repo you are talking about. I'm taking about downloading the whole thing from the sun site as users manually do. So there is effectively no distribuition difference. I am aware that you guys know more about this because you have been pushing for this for such a long time. It's just that the issue was about distributing the jar, and thought that getting the whole distribution would be ok. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
RE: click through license support?
I'm taking about downloading the whole thing from the sun site as users manually do. So there is effectively no distribuition difference. You would have to pass through the license request to the user. It would be a bad idea for the tool to pose as a user without requiring user approval of the actual license. Not sure if you've already said that; just making sure that it gets noted. Nick has a point that this is more of a tools discussion. Any reference to a click-through license would come from meta-data describing the location of a dependency. --- Noel
