www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Harbulot <Bruno.Harbu...@manchester.ac.uk>
Subject Re: Maven, redistribution and licenses
Date Wed, 19 May 2010 00:45:02 GMT
Thanks for your reply, valid points indeed.
It seems from the latest messages on the original thread that the Maven 
team is in fact aware of those issue and is working towards their 
resolution by improving the mechanisms.
This is definitely positive. I think the of the problems (for which I 
started the thread there) were due to the fact we're in the transition 
period and not all the documentation that can be found at various places 
is up to date.

Best wishes,

Bruno.

On 19/05/2010 01:29, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Bruno Harbulot
> <Bruno.Harbulot@manchester.ac.uk>  wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this topic since it's
>> probably not the ASF's problem strictly speaking, but since Maven is an
>> Apache project, I would appreciate some informal advice from people with
>> more legal expertise than me on a discussion I started on the Maven Users
>> list:
>>   http://markmail.org/message/ny42hzbebnh2befb
>
> Yep, the repository is definitely not owned by the ASF.
>
>> The facts on which I'm basing my reasoning are that, in my opinion:
>>
>> - Hosting software on http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/ (for example) is a form
>> of redistribution and falls under the notions of "redistribution" and
>> "conveying" common to a number of OSS licences (Apache, GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT
>> at least).
>
> Sounds like a sane piece of reasoning.
>
> An open question would be who is doing the distributing - are they
> being akin to an ISP or are they the primary distributor.
>
>> - A publisher's omission to include a licence doesn't grant whoever gets
>> hold of that software a licence to redistribute it unconditionally.
>
> I think this is a bit fluffier. I would think that it doesn't grant,
> but it equally doesn't indicate it's not granted.
>
>> Could anyone comment on whether these two points are correct (I suppose it
>> might depend on the territoriality too)?
>>
>>
>> To put this in context, I'm trying to argue that Maven should do a bit more
>> to help respect the licences and that the central repository currently
>> doesn't in a number of cases, since a number of jars don't have any licence
>> information in them or associated with them.
>> (I'm not trying to have a legal battle, but I'm making suggestions to
>> improve the system.)
>
> I would expect the owners of the repository to basically say:
>
> * If anyone is distributing artifacts through the repositories that
> they/we don't have the right to distribute; we will remove it. That's
> definitely happened in the past and I think was a major player in
> getting Sun to stop releasing standard APIs under ugly non-friendly
> licenses.
> * Improving the mechanisms for license management is a great thing.
>
> Hen
>


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


Mime
View raw message