maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicolas De Loof <>
Subject Re: sun jars
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:05:06 GMT

I think the only legal way to build a download script would be to use a 
console mode browser to follow the $BIGCORP download process. But I 
don't think sun download process may be clean viewed on a console mode 

Another solution maybe to patch a graphical browser like hotjava to 
lanch it for sun download URL, get callback on jar download and add it 
to repository... but it perhaps a little bit complicated.


Dalibor Topic a écrit :

>On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 02:15:53PM +0200, Arik Kfir wrote:
>>No, that's ok. The license prohibits you from *redistributing* the
>>JAR. As long as its for your own use, you're fine.
>Depends. In general, people writing non-free licenses make them
>click-wrap so that they can enforce the restrictions on use they came up
>with in court. Bypassing the click-wrap mechanisms may or may not result
>in a valid license for you, and is in general not seen as a good thing
>by the folks licensing the non-free code in the first place, since
>they'd have a harder time in court showing the consent agreement to the
>license, if they had to go there to enforce their restrictions on your
>use of their non-free work.
>For example, if $BIGCORP offers X.jar under a non-free click-wrap
>license, and your script downloads it and does all the clicking
>through, and then $BIGCORP finds out that you worked around their
>licensing arrangements, $BIGCORP can take you to court on the basis that
>you never agreed to their license, so you have no right to use their
>work (it's non-free by the explicit wish of $BIGCORP). Just because you
>can obtain someone's non-free work somehow (script, napster,
>bittorrent), does not mean the $BIGCORP will authorise its use without
>having established some form of a contract with you (rather than
>granting you a free for all license).
>In general, a $BIGCORP peddling in non-free software wants to be able to
>haul your ass into court if they see it fit, and they don't like the
>prospect of having to deal with 'uh, but the $INSTALLER script
>downloaded it all automatically, how am I supposed to know its license,
>which I never actually agreed to anyway?' claims in a court setting, if
>they desire to protect their valuable cash-cow restrictions on
>use/modifications/redistribution in court. Who should $BIGCORP sue then
>for damages if it turns out it can't enforce its license against some
>hypothetical 'evil-doers'? Should $BIGCORP sue the script developers?[1]
>dalibor topic
>[1] A lot of this has already played out in the p2p field anyway, where
>corporations have sued end users, distributors, distribution channels,
>etc, to protect and enforce their restrictions on use. See MGM vs.
>Grokster for an example of suing the script developers instead of the
>copyright violators and pushing it all the way through the supreme
>court of USA.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property
of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you
are not the intended recipient,  you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate,
 distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this  message in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete all  copies of this message.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message