www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Loughran" <steve.lough...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: POM licensing
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:49:52 GMT
 On 9/30/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:

 >
 > > 3.  we could make it explicit for all future uploads.
 >
 > that'd do a lot to clarify the status and allow people outside apache to
 > safe copy and use this meta-data

OK. all POMs that I have provided are apache licensed. That includes
smartfrog poms that are in
http://smartfrog.sourceforge.net/repository/.

We actually autogenerate all our POMs under Ant from templates that
have space for a dynamically inserted comment...all we include is
dependency info. I will change the comment to make it clear that even
though the libs are all LPGL, these poms are apache licensed.

How does this go?

    <property name="pom.comments"
      value="
      Created ${build.date} by ${user.name}.
      This metadata file is published under an Apache license.
      " />

Would that be enough info?

Obviously we should be publishing all this stuff as machine readable
RDF triplets or something, if you really want to mine the meta-data.
Then more facts/beliefs would get added during the build /publish
process, so every pom has a complete audit trail (our comments like to
do blame assignment, but now that we do releases on shared vmware
images, that isnt so reliable

 >
 > > What MD-mining have you been planning?
 >
 > the discordia lab plans to extract licensing related information to
 > build a artifact->license database (probably using RDF). this can then
 > be used to cross reference to license family meta-data.

My colleague paolo castagna -who was at apachecon EU and is probably
on the mail list- has done the RDF extraction. I've always been
meaning to do some walking of the dependency graph.

Paolo? Are you there?

-steve

Mime
View raw message