Same here.
Now that Stefano has republished to wrapper, I think we can add
re-enable it for the beta1 release.
Tks,
- Eric
On 13/06/11 18:15, Norman Maurer wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
