www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <rdon...@apache.org>
Subject Re: POM licensing
Date Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:55:47 GMT
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 22:46 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
> On 01/10/2007, Gilles Scokart <gscokart@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I seriously doubt that pom are not copyrightable.  I'm not a lawer, but I'm
> > quiet sure that writing a pom for complex project requires a serious dose of
> > creativity.  Think to the way you can use pom inheritance, or think to the
> > number of optional dependencies or verion ranges you can use.  Someone can
> > even combine via a pom some modules that were even not expected by the
> > developpers of the project.
> 
> stick some ant stuff inline and you have original work. I dont think
> dependency metadata and other things like are (c), but the
> instructions needed to go from source to working artifacts? Oh yes.

yes, i think so

the expression has copyright. facts themselves do not. see (for example)
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html.

in theory, all existing poms in the apache repository should be original
works covered by CLAs unless explicitly marked otherwise (see
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt section 7). in practice, i have
doubts about that the provinance of most of the meta-data could be
proven. 

> > That, combined to the fact that it might be difficult to find back the
> > original author of the pom.  I think that we have a problem.
> 
> again, this is why I add author info as comments in my poms. Maybe
> someone can go back through all the existing bugreps to identify the
> provider. ouch.

yes: ouch

IMO apache needs to store it's released artifacts in subversion. this
would allow accurate and easy tracking together with commit messages. i
also like the idea of pre-commit hooks.

- robert

Mime
View raw message