In summary, there are no controversial licensing issues for the Jakarta
POI project itself. The only area of question is whether Centipede's
use of LGPL libraries and POI's use of Centipede as a build tool
constitutes a problem. We are eager to resolve this in the event the
board sees
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maven is a nice tool - and I wish it good luck wherever it goes.
But if Maven charter will include the creation of a maven-only
repository -
I hope at least some board members will vote -1.
I don't see that ever happening. Already the Maven repository
Jason van Zyl wrote:
BTW, for the record, was the creation of the jakarta-turbine-maven
resources (CVS and lists) approved by this PMC?
Yes, they were. The creation of the lists didn't get by Sam. It was
Costin who argued that each project should be allowed to do what it
likes.
Ack. For
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Gump _never_ used an object model, never. Gump was targeted at overall
control by a small set of people (and it's still that way, no one
outside of Jakarta/XML barely knows what it is) to build sources against
CVS. That's not what Maven was ever targeted at, ever. Maven
A great Idea! I look forward to seeing you on the ruper(or whatever it ends
up being named) list!
Moreover, the advantage of Java in this case is that we can distribute
binaries,
which reduces the installation time from centuries to minutes. My tests
with
an ebuild for Maven were quite
Excellent. It took me about 15 minutes to prepare this audit. Because I
take my responsibility as a:
member (including my oversight responsibility)
Jakarta PMC member
committer
developer
POI-person
good citizen of the Apache community
seriously, I intend to perform this audit at least
Costin,
what's a 'maven-only' repository?
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
news [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/02/2003 04:53:05 AM:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Those that care to participate, please
news [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/02/2003 06:00:32 AM:
I am talking about this in the context of the other discussions on
having an apache repository ( and use the apache mirroring system, etc).
Also in the context of having a common policy on how releases will
be distributed and structured
repository.
The 'apache repository' and the ones maven can use (note that maven can
have multiple repositories) are not necessarily one and the same thing. We
have a 'repository' at a customer site I work on, as well as one at the
office. Apache hosting its own (of whatever format is agreed)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Maven as a top-level apache project]
BTW, given the license discussions it seems unlikely a solution that
includes all the jars in the same place will work. So the
Steve Downey wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Maven as a top-level apache project]
BTW, given the license discussions it seems unlikely a solution that
includes all the jars in the same
Steve Downey wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Maven as a top-level apache project]
BTW, given the license discussions it seems unlikely a solution that
includes all the jars in the same place
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Costin,
what's a 'maven-only' repository?
There are at least 3 build tools in apache: ant is one of them,
gump and maven ( there are more actually ). There are many
projects whose releases will be in such a repositroy. The policy
and the format of the descriptors
Dan Diephouse wrote:
Steve Downey wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Maven as a top-level apache project]
BTW, given the license discussions it seems unlikely a solution that
includes all the
Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/02/2003
01:13:24 PM:
One thing that has annoyed me is that Maven will download jars from the
ibiblio repository with no regard to the license of them. It's an easy
way
for jars to come into a build without formal review and acceptance of
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but let's not lose focus of what this is for. Distribution?
Building? A company/individual can set up their own repository of jars (we
all do) that they've accepted licenses for. The 'tools' should be able to
work with that set up, similar to how Maven does
Sam Ruby wrote:
It is your responsibility to enforce that policy. Not maven and not
the ASF's. When you integrate JAR or any resource into your project
you are doing so delibrately. You should know where that jar
originally comes from. If you don't, ask on the developers or user's
list.
Dan Diephouse wrote:
People should have a resonable expectation that building an ASF
project should not involve the download of materials in violation of
their licenses or the incurring of any additional obligations.
Enforcement of this policy via Maven or simply by peer review of POMs
are
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dan Diephouse wrote:
4. Can ASF Projects use Sun BCL licensed products?
Yes, but ASF can't distribute them.
Each product you download from Sun's java.sun.com web site has a license
that you have to agree to in order to download that JAR. In the case of
several
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 16:45, Sam Ruby wrote:
Jason, now let me ask you a direct question:
if you don't want to work
with the Apache infrastructure
I am first concerned with setting up the infrastructure that Maven
requires in order to satisfy the needs of people building projects.
L/GPL
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 22:06, Sam Ruby wrote:
It is your responsibility to enforce that policy. Not maven and not the
ASF's. When you integrate JAR or any resource into your project you are
doing so delibrately. You should know where that jar originally comes
from. If you don't,
I've noticed that Gump distributes (via gump.covalent.net) several jar
files which appear to violate the license agreements found in the
projects.
- xmlunit: The license requires:
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've noticed that Gump distributes (via gump.covalent.net) several jar
files which appear to violate the license agreements found in the
projects.
- xmlunit: The license requires:
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list
23 matches
Mail list logo
