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 20:12:40 GMT
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 13:26 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Steve Loughran ha scritto:
> > On 02/10/2007, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The solution is to put the copyright below the root element.
> >> See http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/trunk/pom.xml
> >> In such cases, the header is kept untouched.
> > 
> > 
> > Unless we are going to a policy that all POMs in the repos are apache
> > licensed, the copyright info should be in XML nodes itself, rather
> > than just human-parsed comments.
> > 
> > <pom-copyright licenseuri="http://apache.org/apache/2.0"
> > copyrightholder="http://apache.org/" date="2005-2007" />

neat :-)

but copyrightholder->licensoruri (since copyright is not necessary to
offer a license and the licensor is the entity offer the work under the
given license) 

> > Or you go up to RDF triples. Maybe dublin core docs cover this, though
> > you end up with a bit of the metadata that not enough people will
> > write. You could always make the presence of pom copyright info
> > mandatory in all new artifacts, I suppose.

i'm not sure that dublin core covers the nuances well enough (licensor
verses copyright holder for example) but RDF is good

> I'm not sure this would work, otherwise we would probably already have
> simpler license headers in our java files.

ALv2.0 is safe for inclusion by reference

the reason for the long license header is to explain to all the
copyright status of the work. apache is granted only a license by it's
contributors. the copyright is not assigned but remains in the hands of
the authors. 

> If the whole boilerplate is needed in java files I don't see how it
> could be shorted in a pom.xml.

apache policy means that the source of apache poms should have the
complete boilerplate.

> The fact that the pom.xml is a "redistributable" often separate from a
> package does not allow us to add a license header referring to a NOTICE
> or LICENSE file in the same package, as we don't have a "same package".
> 
> But I think that this specific issue belongs to legal-discuss.

+1

may even need a policy ruling by the legal committee

- robert

Mime
View raw message