On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.

apologies, re-reading this thread i see that i've become a little
personal. i just find it very frustrating and this is a very long
thread that seems to be going nowhere. i've tried to explain where
there are big differences between distribution and use under copyright
law and in apache policy but i haven't really succeeded.

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to