www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <rdon...@apache.org>
Subject Re: POM licensing
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:36:36 GMT
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 17:52 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
> On 30/09/2007, Trustin Lee <trustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Isn't it enough for all project POMs to extend org.apache:apache:pom
> > (currently version 4)?

not sure whether that's good enough from a legal perspective: i'm not
sure that pom extension necessarily derivation, and even if it did then
works derived from . much cleaner to have an explicit header.

> -lots of the .pom files aren't in the right namespace
> - those of us who hand write our pom files dont extend anything from maven.
> -I've always added author metadata as a comment in pom files I've
> supplied, primarily to remove the blame from the original team when I
> was the author of the bad metadata.  My incompetence shouldn't be the
> cause of support calls to other people.

the repository isn't stored in version control so it's more difficult to
demonstrate provinence postmortem. henri's repository commit's is useful
but provinence information cannot be recorded in the commit message
(since there isn't one).

> Interestingly, most RPM .spec files that I've worked with (jpackage,
> and stuff of my own doing) does include license info.


just a license (for the collective) or more detailed information? 

- robert

View raw message