Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
 designates 209.85.198.238 as permitted sender)
Message-Id: <3848986D-C44C-49CD-AF25-54CDE56AB579@dslextreme.com>
From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <caf30e2a0904270000h5df78588mba8279c5a1dfcb79@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: Maven Releases
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:12:15 -0700
References: <caf30e2a0904262034r7d6caa93qc9c2f69aab0a45e5@mail.gmail.com>
 <3AFACF30-E3E1-49CC-9022-B393BE74E4B3@apache.org>
 <caf30e2a0904262305o57d95ea1rc4ef23dcce2e312a@mail.gmail.com>
 <3C4B76E3-5AFE-4555-83C7-D2C2230F01A1@dslextreme.com>
 <caf30e2a0904270000h5df78588mba8279c5a1dfcb79@mail.gmail.com>

Bugs in the maven build belong on maven dev, not here.  I don't see  
why legal discuss needs to be involved with what projects do in their  
build process. We've OK'd using GPL stuff to build Apache websites and  
other tools used in the build. What isn't OK is if the actual release  
isn't compatible. If you have problems with what an actual release  
requires that is fine, but you should still bring it up on Maven dev  
before this mailing list needs to be involved.

Ralph

On Apr 27, 2009, at 12:00 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com 
> > wrote:
>> I'm confused. Are you trying to determine the requirements to build  
>> maven or
>> run maven? The instructions you followed sound like you are trying  
>> to build
>> maven. The requirements to do that are not necessarily the same as  
>> what
>> Apache requires for releases.
>
> Well, Apache releases Open SOURCE, so IMHO if a project can not be
> built to be used, then it doesn't abide by Apache policy. Now, I do
> recognize that bugs happen, and if I had more time I would try more
> versions than the latest, just to look at what really is Maven's
> position to such requirement. The legal discrepancies were just
> sideeffects detected in such attempt.
>
> I also understand that there is a 'bootstrap' problem, and as such I
> am soon to compare these notes with Ant. But *I* am not too happy to
> see that 'bootstrap' is accomplished by downloading 'existing'
> versions of Maven artifacts, i.e. Maven depends on earlier versions of
> Maven, especially if (I am not sure about this) the download location
> is outside Apache's control.
>
> (And I have more concerns about Maven, that I will bring up later, as
> I don't want the discussion to get infected, or that it is perceived
> that I want to make trouble for that particular community.)
>
>
> Cheers
> -- 
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org