On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 ;-)
if you're interested in open source and the law then you really should try to get to more conferences: you might learn something > 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. no: you're wrong if you don't knowingly possess an explicit license then this means exactly and only that: you don't knowingly possess an explicit license. you may still have rights to use or distribute that artifact: you may have an implied license, the artifact might contain an embedded license, a public license may be available (which you don't know about or that you haven't bothered to download) or your legal system may grant fair use rights. AIUI there are some jurisdictions (for example, the UK) which may in theory imply that you need to possess an actual license but in practice this is unenforcable. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
