I agree with stefano..... I really cant understand what all the trouble is about :(
bye norman Am Montag, 13. Juni 2011 schrieb Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>: > 2011/6/13 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org> wrote: >>> 2011/6/12 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>: >>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >>>> <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Norman Maurer >>>>> <norman.mau...@googlemail.com> 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: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
