www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject RE: licensing issues for virtual artifacts (was RE: click through license support?)
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:05:55 GMT
Why don't we just focus on:

a) getting an ASF-only repository up first, and
b) Getting the management and tooling for that

before taking on virtual hosting.

I'm failing to see the requirement for us to do that *now*.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/



"Tim Anderson" <tma@netspace.net.au> wrote on 23/11/2003 11:06:08 AM:

> Virtual artifacts have the potential to:
> . simplify build environments
> . simplify installation documentation
> . reduce the bar of entry for building ASF software
> . reduce support requests
> . allow meta-data to be associated with 3rd
>   party artifacts
> 
> They are not about:
> . hosting 3rd party artifacts within ASF repository
> . circumventing licenses of 3rd party products
> . exposing ASF to liability
> 
> So far, no one has demonstrated that virtual
> artifacts would expose ASF to liability -
> although I'm not privvy to discussions held on
> non-public ASF lists.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2003 10:41 AM
> > To: repository@apache.org
> >
> > > Suppose ASF has the following link in the repository:
> > >   http://repo.apache.org/sun/jndi/1.2.1/jars/jndi-1.2.1.jar
> > > This is a virtual artifact, not hosted at ASF.
> >
> > I do not like the idea of virtual artifacts.  I think that the
> > meta-data for
> > any component that needs a foreign artifact should contain the 
information
> > needed by some tool.  I don't think that we want to include foreign
> > components in the ASF namespace.  In fact, there is a situation right 
now
> > where someone else has done that to the ASF, and we're not happy about 
it.
> >
> >    --- Noel
> >
> >
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message