Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>>>> I checked MAVENUPLOAD and the first reference about junit is:
>> >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-1168
>> >> And it is about junit 4.1: the submitter say he took the pom from 4.0
>> >> and updated it.. so this doesn't help for now. IF the original junit
pom
>> >> was under the CPL then probably that user was not entitled in altering
>> >> the content and submit it to the ASF and the ASF should not have
>> >> uploaded it to central (is this right?).
>> >
>> > codehaus is not apache. any source use from codehaus needs to come in
>> > via the incubator IP clearance.
>> >
>> > - robert
>>
>> Hey... MAVENUPLOAD at codehaus is *THE* *WAY* artifacts use to be placed
>> in central by the ASF ;-) . Or at least this is what maven tells to the
>> world:
>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
>>
>> I can also confirm that I have successfully created a pom for dnsjava,
>> uploaded it to codehaus MAVENUPLOAD JIRA and someone published it to the
>> maven central repository.
>>
>> I just repeat that MOST projects in ASF are using the poms included in
>> central and this is a big issue that is being mostly ignored,
>> unfortunately. That is why I think the PPMC are not being diligent and
>> the board should help spreading this issue and coordinate all the PPMCs
>> to find a common solution to this issue.
>
> using artifacts from the maven repository does not worry me:
> distributing artifacts does
>
> - robert
I understand this, but I didn't understand why.
If that file is under an acceptable license then we can use and
redistribute it, otherwise we can't use and redistribute it IMO.
you can opinion all you like but you're wrong
use and distribution are two distinct and different concepts and
rights under copyright law. it is perfectly possible to create
licenses which allow use but not distribution and vice versa.
- robert
Sorry. I can accept your opinion but I don't think I'm wrong and you're
right ;-)
What I say is that if you DON'T KNOW THE LICENSE the ALL RIGHTS ARE
RESERVED. This means you can't redistribute it and you can't
automatically download it as part of an automated process.
I know it is possible to create license to say everything: I can also
create a license that allow you to redistribute my stuff in a package
but not to publish a part of it on a website and allow people to
automatically download it.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
