On 9/30/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > hey stefano! > > > > are the pom's in stage covered by a CLA? > > I'm not familiar with the "covered by a CLA" you already asked me in past. > > That poms are not an original contribution by me.
ok (didn't know if you'd rolled them yourself) > So I just read the > icla again and I think this what you refer to: > --------------------------- > 7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation, > You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any > Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of > any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, > related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you > are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as > "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]". > --------------------------- > > I guess I should have used the "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: > [named here]" sentence when I committed them (and also when we commit > anything not created by us). yes i'm a bit of a traditionalist: i tend to favour the jon and craig's phrasing from the earliest days of jakarta rather than that in the ICLA. i should really try to remember to use that phrase. > I'm a bit confused because in 3 years I spent around ASF projects I > never seen anyone in ASF using a similar sentence when committing third > party jars or resources to svn. Have we all did it wrong in past or am I > simply misunderstanding the icla about this issue? you may have missed them. for example: > % svn log src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/MimeStreamParser.java > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r558847 | rdonkin | 2007-07-23 20:54:08 +0100 (Mon, 23 Jul 2007) | 1 line > > Pull parser patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-19. > Contributed by Jochen Wiedmann. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r541636 | norman | 2007-05-25 14:17:21 +0100 (Fri, 25 May 2007) | 1 line > > Allow exceptions from a ContentHandler (Thx to Jukka). See MIME4J-16 i prefer 'Contributed by' rather than 'Submitted on behalf of' norman is less formal 'Thx to Jukka' but the ICLA is followed in spirit if not in letter really, though, we should all use the specified form > > in other words, is it safe for me to attach the standard license headers > > > > - robert > > The poms are descriptor used when the artifacts have been published to > the maven repository. Most times they have been authored by the > publishing project, some times they have been authored by the one that > submitted the jar to the repository. yes > I don't know what is the correct licensing for that files when nothing > is specified in the file itself (do the "maven repository" people ask > for any license/copyright permissions to submitter?). they should do > Back to the jsieve issue, excluding junit, activation and mail all the > other dependencies are ASF projects, so I would assume that their poms > taken from ASF m2-rsync-repository is ASLv2 licensed (and they simply do > not add the license to their poms). all pom's from apache projects should be covered by CLAs and so should have headers. i'll raise this on repo. > the 2 glassfish poms (activation and mail) are from their main maven > repository: > https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository/javax.mail/poms/ > https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/nonav/repository/javax.activation/poms/ > I would say that the intended licensing for that files is the same of > the described library, but this is not obvious and not described anyway. it would probably be a good idea to raise this on the maven list > About the junit one IIRC I made it when I committed it to jspf or mime4j > (don't remember now) and I took the original simple pom from ibiblio and > added a description and licensing (so to have them added to the NOTICE) > like the one present in newer poms: > ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/packages/maven2/junit/junit/4.1/junit-4.1.pom > > I admit that I never considered the licensing issue for the pom files, > but given that we finally decided to bundle them in our svn to help > offline build and create "almost self contained" maven2 (website) builds > for most of our projects this is clearly something to be better understood. +1 - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
