On 9/30/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > On 9/30/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The case I was referring to is different because that poms have not been > >> submitted to JIRA but have been created by someone else that never > >> donated/submitted them for JAMES inclusion. (like any JAR we placed in a > >> lib folder). > > > > the division of apache into projects is only for convenience. anything > > contributed to an apache project is contributed to apache. > > > > these poms were originally uploaded onto apache servers by a > > committer. when copying documents already contributed to apache, this > > should be noted. > > I think that artifact submission procedure does not require the > submitter to be a committer. > > As described here > http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html > someone (any JIRA user) simply open a new JIRA issue and is not required > to have the copyrights for such jars/poms to JIRA.
copyright is not neccessary: just a suitable license > The procedure does not even tell the uploader what are the allowed > licenses for the uploaded artifacts. > > Am I allowed to ask uploads of a GPL jar? what about a non open source jar? > > Does this means that the "responsibility" to check this is left to the > person that will concretely place that jars/poms in the right folder? > Are they the "repository" guys and no one else? i think so but this is a question for maven or repo > >> This is probably the "key" of this issue. What is the license for pom > >> files redistributed by ibiblio and other maven repositories? > > > > +1 > > I saw you asked this in repository. > But I'm a bit confused about what repository we are talking about: there > is a maven repository managed by ASF including only releases for ASF > projects: http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository/ > but this is only a subset of what we can see in the maven central > (http://repo1.maven.org/maven2). > > I think that it is safe to think that poms released by ASF in the former > are ASLv2 licensed (even if each project forgot to add a license > header), but the big issue is the licensing for the other poms. there are quite a number of relative issues all reasonably important > >> If we can assume that a pom is always redistributed under the same terms > >> of the jar/artifact it describes then I think we are ok with our current > >> NOTICES/LICENSE comments, otherwise it will be a real pain to understand > >> what we can do. > > > > an alternative would be create our own pom's. the critical meta-data > > (dependencies) is probably not copyrightable. see > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html. > > this probably needs raising on legal-discuss. > > > > - robert > > If we choose this way then we probably should use also a different > groupId/artifactId because of the way maven works. Otherwise if our poms > declare different dependencies or have any other difference maven will > behave differently depending on random events (the artifacts are > permanently installed in the local repository, first win.. once they > have been installed by us they will be taken for "good" also from other > projects that probably will instead work with the "original" pom) perhaps > If the dependencies is not copyrightable, the license reference is not > copyrightable and the artifactId+groupdId is not copyrightable then 99% > of POMs are not copyrightable and we are safe, but we end up > understanding something of this complicate issue this should be > definitely written somewhere in apache documents (maybe the 3rd party > page from cliff is a good place, or the maven repository documentation). AIUI the expression is probably copyrightable but the facts themselves are not - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
