I'm not sure if there is a distinction between development time and provisioning here WRT to licensing, as something we release we have to ensure we clearly delineate where users could be expecting to be building on our project vs a third party (ie. a user builds a distro, then they should know what licenses they've pickup from the global repo). If its in a repo file then all we would need to do is add a meta tag to indicate license. That would seem to be scalable, and reasonable to maintain.
J On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, and the point you raised are really important. > We definitely need to find a good mechanism to ensure we don't break > anything on existing karaf (well, maybe in production, we should just > tell people to disable this feature anyway, as it should just be a > call to features:removeurl somehow or modifying the correct > configuration file). > Also, pgp / signing and licensing are definitely good idea too, but > I'm slightly less worried about that, as I think the main goal is ease > of use at developement time and not really a provisioning mechanism to > be used in production (where you want to test before installing stuff > anyway, so you'd not use the global repo directly I think). > > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 20:40, Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: >> To be clear the general concept I am ok with, I'm just reviewing >> potential issues that should be resolved. >> >> As an enhancement to the concept, I also think that each entry in a >> repo file should include a license notice of some sort so that we can >> adhere to categories A, B, and X under Apache licensing rules: >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories >> >> Cheers, >> Jamie >> >> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Andreas Pieber <anpie...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Ioannis Canellos <ioca...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Thanks Guillaume, >>>> >>>> >>>>> If we agree on that, I think we should also trim down a bit the >>>>> standard descriptor to remove any non core-karaf related features >>>>> (such as spring, spring-dm, spring-web, and even war). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I like the idea of the repository file, however I don't see war and cellar >>>> fall back to this category (imho this is a solution fit for external >>>> projects and not sub-projects). This could be a great idea for providing >>>> functionality to the minimal distribution, but not on standard. >>> >>> TBH I'm with Guaillaume here (although I also share Jamies concerns >>> about stability). This is quite similar to what I've described on >>> another thread (extracting deployer (spring at least), management, >>> web, ...). This will allow us to keep the "karaf-kernel" as small as >>> possible. In addition, using this model we can release components >>> independent of Karaf. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Andreas >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Ioannis Canellos* >>>> * >>>> http://iocanel.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC >>>> Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer >>>> * >>>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > > Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 > The Open Source Integration Conference > http://camelone.com/ >
