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 Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:33:24 GMT
On 08/10/2007, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> > > 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

Yes, I think you'd have to move a long way up the semweb product tree
to come up with the FSF's model of ownership and transitive credit ::)


>
> > 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

ok. will do this in the next releases of whatever I dabble in..

>
> 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.

We'll patch the ant ones.

Mime
View raw message