Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:12 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:
<snip>
>> 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
Furthermore, I wrote *acceptable*. And this means that I think that if
the artifact is, for example, an ALv2, BSD, MIT, W3C Software we are
allowed to do BOTH. I also think that the CPL (junit license) would be
ok, if the junit.pom was under that license.
So you probably simply missed my "acceptable" word, otherwise tell me
why I'm wrong wrt the above licenses.
if you intended to talk about apache policy then rules for use and
distribution are different: for example, httpd may use GNU linux when
it runs but we do not allow GNU linux to be distributed with HTTPD.
if you intended to talk about the law, see above
- robert
It is not important if rules for download and distribution are different
unless we don't have rules for download and distributions of files under
an unknown license. The 3rd party document doesn't tell what category is
"unknown license" and does not tell us what category "All rights
reserved, you can't even read this license, if you read this license
then you are a dead man" belongs to ;-)
If we find that the pom is under the ALv2, BSD, MIT, W3C Software or CPL
can we automatically download from the central? Can we include it "as
is" as part of an ASF release?
Talking about other licenses you already told that there may be licenses
that allow remote download but not redistribution and vice versa, so I
don't get the GNU linux sentence meaning.
The fact is that we don't know the license, so there are many cases:
1) The copyright holder have reserved all rights and he was not who
uploaded the file to central (so probably the file should not be there)
2) The copyright holder have reserver all rights and he was the original
uploader of the file to central.
3) The copyright holder have a assigned a specific license to his work
but forgot to add a reference to the license.
3a) The license allow us to remotely download the artifact AND to
redistribute it, but ASF policies tell us to not do this.
3b) The license allow us to remotely download the artifact AND to
redistribute it AND ASF policy allow us to do both.
3c) The license allow us to remotely download the artifact BUT NOT to
redistribute it.
3d) The license allow us to redistribute it BUT NOT to remotely
download it as part of an automated process.
Did I forget some case?
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
