archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joakim Erdfelt <>
Subject Re: reporting & jasper reports
Date Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:18:26 GMT
Brett Porter wrote:
> On 03/08/2007, at 3:23 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
>> And with the dozen or so licenses in use by ant and maven, how and 
>> why is this suddenly important to archiva, but not the other projects?
>> In maven and ant we have jgpl'd and oddball licenses such as ...
>> checkstyle, clover, netrexx, jruby, judo, jython, javamail, 
>> activation, and jai.
> The key point is distribution. Ant does not distribute any of these. 
> Maven is in a grey area, where it downloads them (so is compliant), 
> but does so automatically (which makes it a few shades of grey given 
> it's a policy aimed at "no surprises" licensing). There's no doubt it 
> can be improved. Also a factor is that a lot of these predate the 
> policy, and the policy has a transition period which is what I linked to.
> But Archiva is doing this for the first time, in awareness of the 
> policy, and as it stands would have to distribute the JAR - so I think 
> we need to take it into consideration. Discussions about the policy 
> itself belong on legal-discuss - we should just deal with the best way 
> to apply it.
> So far others have agreed with the approach outlined using a profile - 
> do you have any other issues with doing that?

That translation (explanation?) is *far* easier to understand than the 
URL you pointed to.

> Teody said on this thread yesterday that he was working on updates 
> based on the feedback Deng had given in the issue, so if that patch 
> looks ok too and gets applied, we'll then need to deal with this 
> before we can move forward with the release next week.

The current set of patches are already applied.
We'll have to kinda/sorta undo them.

- Joakim Erdfelt
  Open Source Software (OSS) Developer

View raw message