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 Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:55:47 GMT
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 22:46 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
> On 01/10/2007, Gilles Scokart <gscokart@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I seriously doubt that pom are not copyrightable.  I'm not a lawer, but I'm
> > quiet sure that writing a pom for complex project requires a serious dose of
> > creativity.  Think to the way you can use pom inheritance, or think to the
> > number of optional dependencies or verion ranges you can use.  Someone can
> > even combine via a pom some modules that were even not expected by the
> > developpers of the project.
> stick some ant stuff inline and you have original work. I dont think
> dependency metadata and other things like are (c), but the
> instructions needed to go from source to working artifacts? Oh yes.

yes, i think so

the expression has copyright. facts themselves do not. see (for example)

in theory, all existing poms in the apache repository should be original
works covered by CLAs unless explicitly marked otherwise (see
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt section 7). in practice, i have
doubts about that the provinance of most of the meta-data could be

> > That, combined to the fact that it might be difficult to find back the
> > original author of the pom.  I think that we have a problem.
> again, this is why I add author info as comments in my poms. Maybe
> someone can go back through all the existing bugreps to identify the
> provider. ouch.

yes: ouch

IMO apache needs to store it's released artifacts in subversion. this
would allow accurate and easy tracking together with commit messages. i
also like the idea of pre-commit hooks.

- robert

View raw message