Re: License for POM files

2007-03-07 Thread Brett Porter
I think the feedback on the list was consistent with this, I'll get it written up somewhere. - Brett On 06/03/2007, at 9:09 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 07:21 +1100, Brett Porter wrote: This is my take: - if they contain a license block in the file, then it's that license,

Re: License for POM files

2007-03-06 Thread Deepak Bhole
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 07:21 +1100, Brett Porter wrote: > This is my take: > - if they contain a license block in the file, then it's that > license, otherwise > - if they contain element(s), then those license(s), otherwise > - Apache License 2.0 > > I'll run this past the PMC to see if we all

Re: License for POM files

2007-02-16 Thread Deepak Bhole
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 23:29 -0800, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > you could check the parent pom. In this case not even the parent has license. > > Anything that should be done in the future to clarify the legal aspects? > Ideally, I think every pom should have a license field that mentions the license

Re: License for POM files

2007-02-15 Thread Dan Tran
The quickest solution for now is to introduce new plexus root parent with license element. at least we can said it is, free, free ;-) then migrate all submodules to use the new parent. -D On 2/14/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: you could check the parent pom. In this case not e

Re: License for POM files

2007-02-14 Thread Carlos Sanchez
you could check the parent pom. In this case not even the parent has license. Anything that should be done in the future to clarify the legal aspects? On 2/14/07, Deepak Bhole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 12:21 -0800, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > The license should be inside the

Re: License for POM files

2007-02-14 Thread Deepak Bhole
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 12:21 -0800, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > The license should be inside the pom section, or in the > maven1 repo in the .license files > Very few of the poms I am seeing have licenses. For example, even the critical plexus ones don't have one: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/c

Re: License for POM files

2007-02-14 Thread Dan Tran
I beleive all plexus poms, not even the root parent, contains the license element. According to Brett, I assume it is apache2 type license since it is in repo1. However a written statement is even better. -D On 2/14/07, Trygve Laugstøl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Deepak Bhole wrote: > Hi, >

Re: License for POM files

2007-02-14 Thread Trygve Laugstøl
Deepak Bhole wrote: Hi, What license are the pom files in the maven2 repository (repo1.maven.org/maven2) under? We need to know if we are allowed to redistribute those poms with Fedora. They either have the license of the project in question (as they come from the project) or they're written b

Re: License for POM files

2007-02-13 Thread Carlos Sanchez
The license should be inside the pom section, or in the maven1 repo in the .license files On 2/13/07, Deepak Bhole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, What license are the pom files in the maven2 repository (repo1.maven.org/maven2) under? We need to know if we are allowed to redistribute those pom

Re: License for POM files

2007-02-13 Thread Brett Porter
This is my take: - if they contain a license block in the file, then it's that license, otherwise - if they contain element(s), then those license(s), otherwise - Apache License 2.0 I'll run this past the PMC to see if we all believe this consistently. On 14/02/2007, at 7:10 AM, Deepak Bhole

License for POM files

2007-02-13 Thread Deepak Bhole
Hi, What license are the pom files in the maven2 repository (repo1.maven.org/maven2) under? We need to know if we are allowed to redistribute those poms with Fedora. Thanks, Deepak - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] F