2011/6/13 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2011/6/12 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: >>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Norman Maurer >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi Robert, >>> >>> Hi Norman >>> >>>>> I still don't get your point and I really disagree about "commenting >>>>> out". >>>> >>>> I was worry that anyone here in England building James has a chance of >>>> ending up in goal... >>> >>> I believe that permissive public licenses for JSW were available in >>> the past but I find that can't obtain one now. This means I'm breaking >>> the copyright law here in the UK. >> >> What does this means? I obtained the package from them some year ago. >> It was under the MIT license and I can now redistribute it under the >> same licensing. > > Yes, you can :-)
:-) >> Anyone can do this. > > No - only people who were issued with the old public license can > >> And in fact also maven.org is redistributing it >> under the same MIT license: >> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=tanukisoft/wrapper-delta-pack/3.2.3/wrapper-delta-pack-3.2.3.tar.gz > > I reviewed the jar and pom. Maven central were never issued with the > software under a public license, only under a promise that public > license could be obtained. It's a systematic flaw... IMO you simply reviewed the wrong artifacts. The jar and the pom are not downloaded by our build process. Our build process downloads the tar.gz artifact I linked previously. Did you download and review it? The tar.gz is a self contained package and INCLUDES the license (doc/license.txt file in the package). That very package is the only package from which we "extract" the contents we then bundle in our binary. We don't bundle the pom, nor the jar and AFAIK they are not even touched/downloaded/looked-up during our build process. So, why should we care about the licensing of files we don't use? Is the english law so weird that doesn't allow the license to be included in the package but require a "pom" file in the same folder to say what the license is? > Anyone who has a public license could republish the artifact under > that public license. There would be no problems then using that > instance. So at least we have a way out as I can redistribute it, but I hope we don't even need this (I don't want to fight with maven central managers in order to have a second identical copy of the artifact published in their tree and I don't know where to publish it as apache doesn't want to publish third party software). Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
