On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 07:52:48PM +0100, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
I'm not saying that the central repo should investigate each and every
case to check that it's indeed true, but it should make it mandatory to
have a licence at least so as to avoid to put software that is
mistakenly
Hi,
I've just submitted this issue: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4680
However, I'm told this wasn't the right place to submit. I'm not sure.
To me, one of the key features of Apache Maven (if not the main feature)
is its repository mechanism. This makes the redistribution of software
I thought it was well-established that you should include the license
inside binary and source artifacts. What exactly is your reason for
thinking this isn't a good idea? Saying that it isn't obvious doesn't
really count IMHO as this is highly subjective.
Justin
On 5/18/10 1:09 PM, Bruno
On 18/05/2010 1:09 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
Hi,
I've just submitted this issue: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4680
However, I'm told this wasn't the right place to submit. I'm not sure.
To me, one of the key features of Apache Maven (if not the main
feature) is its repository
On 18/05/2010 18:25, Justin Edelson wrote:
I thought it was well-established that you should include the license
inside binary and source artifacts.
What exactly is your reason for
thinking this isn't a good idea? Saying that it isn't obvious doesn't
really count IMHO as this is highly
On 18/05/2010 18:33, Ron Wheeler wrote:
1) If people are distributing their own software in violation of their
own licensing, it is their problem.
2) If people are distributing other people's software in violation of
the licencing, they should stop.
Hard to see how this is a Maven problem or
On 5/18/10 2:50 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
On 18/05/2010 18:25, Justin Edelson wrote:
I thought it was well-established that you should include the license
inside binary and source artifacts.
What exactly is your reason for
thinking this isn't a good idea? Saying that it isn't obvious
On 18/05/2010 2:52 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
On 18/05/2010 18:33, Ron Wheeler wrote:
1) If people are distributing their own software in violation of their
own licensing, it is their problem.
2) If people are distributing other people's software in violation of
the licencing, they should
On 18/05/2010 20:45, Ron Wheeler wrote:
On 18/05/2010 2:52 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
But how is a repository to know
1) Who is allowed to upload?
2) What, if any, license scheme the person uses. I can make up my own
license and I don't think that copyright or any law depends on a copy of
the
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Bruno Harbulot
bruno.harbu...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 18/05/2010 20:33, Justin Edelson wrote:
Clarification of the documentation and/or mechanisms on how to
redistribute the licences properly with the software is what I'm
suggesting. In terms of core
The MAVENUPLOAD issue you refer to was processed by hand. This is
something we've worked to stop and automate, so it's not really
relevant what happened it was 2 years ago.
That said, I don't know if LICENSE.txt inside the new bundle format
would be handled any differently because LICENSE.txt is
On 19/05/2010 00:41, Brian Fox wrote:
The MAVENUPLOAD issue you refer to was processed by hand. This is
something we've worked to stop and automate, so it's not really
relevant what happened it was 2 years ago.
That said, I don't know if LICENSE.txt inside the new bundle format
would be
Does that follow more or less the new guidelines? Are you saying that I
should have jsslutils-1.0-licence.txt next to the other jars in the bundle
instead (sorry, I can't see licence files in the screenshots on that blog
entry).
No, I'm saying if you wanted the license sitting in the folder
On 15/05/2010 21:56, Benson Margulies wrote:
I think that perhaps there's an important distinction being missed
here. Central doesn't vacuum up artifacts from unsuspecting authors.
Other people put them there. If the authors of code choose to deposit
jar files on central, then it's not central
On 16/05/2010 02:00, Brian Fox wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Benson Marguliesbimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, these are good ideas.
Well, I'm not sure this is just about good ideas, it sounds more like
a legal requirement. This being said, I'm not a lawyer, it's just the
way I
Usually? I'm not sure really.
NOTICE and LICENSE files are fine in source bundles, but they don't seem
to be put into the source jars with the current bundling process. They
probably don't belong to the binary jars anyway (unless perhaps in the
META-INF directory, somewhere?).
Anyway, I
I think that perhaps there's an important distinction being missed
here. Central doesn't vacuum up artifacts from unsuspecting authors.
Other people put them there. If the authors of code choose to deposit
jar files on central, then it's not central who is 'distributing' them
-- it's the authors.
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that perhaps there's an important distinction being missed
here. Central doesn't vacuum up artifacts from unsuspecting authors.
Other people put them there. If the authors of code choose to deposit
jar files
Hello,
Is there a way to prepare a bundle to be uploaded to the central
repository so that it also contains the licence file?
Ideally, I'd like a licence file along these files, for example:
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/jsslutils/jsslutils/0.5.1/
My POM contains this:
licenses
http://www.sonatype.com/people/2010/04/uploading-artifacts-to-the-central-maven-repository-diy/
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Harbulot
bruno.harbu...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hello,
Is there a way to prepare a bundle to be uploaded to the central repository
so that it also contains
Thanks for the link. Perhaps someone could put it on this page:
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
Nevertheless, this doesn't really answer my question. The point I was
making was that, with the current model, licences are missing in most
projects as far
Usually this is handled by inserting NOTICE and LICENSE into the jar
files themselves. In theory you could attach the license file to the
main artifact using the license classifier but normally this isn't
done.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Bruno Harbulot
bruno.harbu...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
22 matches
Mail list logo
