www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: restrictions are optional
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:46:43 GMT
Steve Loughran wrote:
> On 08/06/06, Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org> wrote:
>> another thing that we should force is to make people add licensing
>> issues to the POMs and all those that they depend on, so that we could
>> automate the legal dependency checks.
>>
> 
> I can see someone is angling to rewrite the POMs in RDF and use dublin
> core metadata in there.
> 
> Is there a special RDF ontology for F/OSS licenses, taking into
> account the special logic of some members of the community? I can see
> the transtive inference rules being kind of complex.

<slap/>

That's what you get from spending to much time with the Jena folks! :-)

I agree with Niclas that if we want to integrate heterogeneous package
systems, then RDF and friends can help a great deal.

But here we are talking about extending a single package management
system which we are able to easily influence/contribute-to.. and believe
me, this is a lucky situation and RDF is just a pain in those situations
(which is why practically anyone believes it's just an overdesigned vision).

As for inferencing/reasoning, there is no need to think in terms of
description logics, or even in terms of declarative rule engines. It's
way simpler than that:

 foreach (project in projects) {
   foreach (dependency in project.dependencies) {
      if (!isAllowedLicense(dependency.license)) {
          throw new LicenseNotAllowedException(project, dependency);
      }
   }
 }

and isAllowedLicenses() could be populated out of a configuration file
that our legal VP maintains directly.

-- 
Stefano.


Mime
View raw message