james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [JSieve] pom's in stage
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:23:00 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> hey stefano!
> are the pom's in stage covered by a CLA?

I'm not familiar with the "covered by a CLA" you already asked me in past.

That poms are not an original contribution by me. So I just read the
icla again and I think this what you refer to:
7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation,
   You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any
   Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of
   any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to,
   related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you
   are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as
   "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".

I guess I should have used the "Submitted on behalf of a third-party:
[named here]" sentence when I committed them (and also when we commit
anything not created by us).

I'm a bit confused because in 3 years I spent around ASF projects I
never seen anyone in ASF using a similar sentence when committing third
party jars or resources to svn. Have we all did it wrong in past or am I
simply misunderstanding the icla about this issue?

> in other words, is it safe for me to attach the standard license headers
> - robert

The poms are descriptor used when the artifacts have been published to
the maven repository. Most times they have been authored by the
publishing project, some times they have been authored by the one that
submitted the jar to the repository.

I don't know what is the correct licensing for that files when nothing
is specified in the file itself (do the "maven repository" people ask
for any license/copyright permissions to submitter?).

Back to the jsieve issue, excluding junit, activation and mail all the
other dependencies are ASF projects, so I would assume that their poms
taken from ASF m2-rsync-repository is ASLv2 licensed (and they simply do
not add the license to their poms).

the 2 glassfish poms (activation and mail) are from their main maven
I would say that the intended licensing for that files is the same of
the described library, but this is not obvious and not described anyway.

About the junit one IIRC I made it when I committed it to jspf or mime4j
(don't remember now) and I took the original simple pom from ibiblio and
added a description and licensing (so to have them added to the NOTICE)
like the one present in newer poms:

I admit that I never considered the licensing issue for the pom files,
but given that we finally decided to bundle them in our svn to help
offline build and create "almost self contained" maven2 (website) builds
for most of our projects this is clearly something to be better understood.

What's your opinion?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message