www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matth...@offthelip.org>
Subject Re: POM licensing
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:44:59 GMT
On 9/30/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 17:44 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
> > On 30/09/2007, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> > > many (most?) pom's in the repository lack license information. it's
> > > therefore unclear under what conditions the meta-data can be used or
> > > re-used. this prevents meta-data mining.
> > >
> > > since the respository is hosted on apache hardware, IMHO the meta-data
> > > released through the repository should be explicitly licensed under
> > > ALv2.0.
> >
> > interesting point.
> >
> > 1. under US law (not EU), indexed data itself isnt really
> > copyrightable. The form might be, but not the index.
>
> yes, AIUI the expression only is copyrightable.
>
> IIRC there is some protection for databases to prevent data mining of
> complete data sets but i doubt that applies in this case
>
> my worry is the automated transformation of that expression into another
> usually requires copyright permission. so, though i might be ok going
> through a pom and writing down it's license, the automated case may not.
> probably a question for legal-discuss...


Interesting, I hadn't thought of the license of the license information.
Assuming the POMs are under the same license as the original work, then an
extraction of it can probably be considered a derived work, no? When does an
index starts becoming an extract of the original? Might be a question for
legal-discuss as you mentioned.

> 2. Anyone who provides the artifacts+nmetadata via a JIRA bugrep may
> > be implicitly licensing it, though since those bugs are filed on
> > codehaus (correct?), that may not hold.
>
> codehaus makes things more difficult. AL2.0 gives apache rights to code
> submitted to apache. i don't think that this applies to code submitted
> through codehaus.
>
> > 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
>
> > 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.
>
> - robert
>
>

Mime
View raw message