So I have moved back the provider to sandbox and start a fork here [1] If someone want to have karma ping me.
-- Olivier [1] http://code.google.com/p/maven-scm-provider-svnjava/ 2009/3/20 Jason van Zyl <jvan...@sonatype.com>: > Brett, > > There is no way we accept the Sleepcat license, it's viral. It is also > heavily recommend against using because it can force you to have to > redistribute your source code. That from our IP lawyer who deals with every > day. Please don't dispense legal advice. Everything in law is in > interpretation but there are some accepted interpretation. It's also > unlikely that those contracts are identical unless they are verbatim and > originate from the same country. > > On 20-Mar-09, at 8:02 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: > >> only maven-scm-provider-svnjava >> >> -- >> Olivier >> >> 2009/3/20 Jason van Zyl <jvan...@sonatype.com>: >>> >>> That's an old fork of svnkit, not sure you want to put it there. That >>> project is essentially dead. >>> >>> On 20-Mar-09, at 1:46 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> Not in mojo but here : http://xircles.codehaus.org/projects/svn4j ? >>>> >>>> a new path : https://svn.codehaus.org/svn4j/maven-scm-provider-svnjava/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Olivier >>>> >>>> 2009/3/20 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>: >>>>> >>>>> On 20/03/2009, at 2:17 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So the Brett proposal looks fine too. >>>>>> I can mark the svnjava provider as optionnal and explain why on the >>>>>> scm site and explain how to use it. >>>>> >>>>> That was all my opinion, so we should get it confirmed before release. >>>>> Note >>>>> that under the current FAQ the Sleepycat license (which this is >>>>> equivalent >>>>> to), is not allowed for inclusion. >>>>> >>>>> I filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-45, and added a >>>>> couple >>>>> more points on the list about how we can avoid it getting used without >>>>> being >>>>> aware of the license - putting it in a separate build profile and >>>>> making >>>>> sure it is not in the aggregating POM. >>>>> >>>>> It can always go to mojo, but I think it'd be a shame to have to >>>>> separate >>>>> it, so it's worth asking. >>>>> >>>>> - Brett >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Brett Porter >>>>> br...@apache.org >>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> Jason van Zyl >>> Founder, Apache Maven >>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples. >>> Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without >>> actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one >>> is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by >>> looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples >>> you look at, the more general your framework will be. >>> >>> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks >>> >>> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > the course of true love never did run smooth ... > > -- Shakespeare > >
