www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: POM licensing
Date Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:26:08 GMT
Steve Loughran ha scritto:
> On 02/10/2007, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The solution is to put the copyright below the root element.
>> See http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/trunk/pom.xml
>> In such cases, the header is kept untouched.
> Unless we are going to a policy that all POMs in the repos are apache
> licensed, the copyright info should be in XML nodes itself, rather
> than just human-parsed comments.
> <pom-copyright licenseuri="http://apache.org/apache/2.0"
> copyrightholder="http://apache.org/" date="2005-2007" />
> Or you go up to RDF triples. Maybe dublin core docs cover this, though
> you end up with a bit of the metadata that not enough people will
> write. You could always make the presence of pom copyright info
> mandatory in all new artifacts, I suppose.
> -steve

I'm not sure this would work, otherwise we would probably already have
simpler license headers in our java files.

If the whole boilerplate is needed in java files I don't see how it
could be shorted in a pom.xml.

The fact that the pom.xml is a "redistributable" often separate from a
package does not allow us to add a license header referring to a NOTICE
or LICENSE file in the same package, as we don't have a "same package".

But I think that this specific issue belongs to legal-discuss.

Maybe we should summarize the legal issues raised in this topic and
submit them to legal-discuss before going deeper with
technical/procedural solutions to the problems we found.

I will post a summary of the issues I collected in a separate message.


View raw message