You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jena.apache.org by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> on 2015/05/01 15:37:37 UTC
jena-permissions POM and plugin
Claude,
1/ The jena-permissions POM has items that override jena-parent, and the
apache parent which as repositories. Also, jena-parent does the version
management for plugins. Presumably this is just hangover from initial
development?
2/ When I put this into Eclipse, I get a dialog box about the license of
a plugin - presumably build-helper-maven-plugin.
Eclispe seemed to say it was EPL (version?) but their website suggests MIT.
Could you take a look at that please? Both those license need an
acknowledgement and EPl is "weak copyleft". Because they aren't include
directly, a DEPENDENCIES file is enough, not NOTICE.
Andy
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
Re: jena-permissions POM and plugin
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
That's my understanding as well for category-a licenses.
In DEPENDENCIES is nice but nothing in NOTICE is needed.
Seems that Eclipse going on about EPL was not accurate.
Andy
On 09/05/15 15:18, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> Technically those Maven plugins are never included in any Jena distribution
> nor used by the compiled product, hence no NOTICE requirement should be
> needed as those generally only apply to distribution, not use.
> On 9 May 2015 10:41, "Claude Warren" <cl...@xenei.com> wrote:
>
>> Should I add the build-helper-maven-plugin to jena-parent?
>>
>> Seems like the MIT license would require that all modules that use it will
>> be required to update their notice files. On the other hand, I see that it
>> is better to have all plugins managed in one place.
>>
>> Claude
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Claude,
>>>
>>> 1/ The jena-permissions POM has items that override jena-parent, and the
>>> apache parent which as repositories. Also, jena-parent does the version
>>> management for plugins. Presumably this is just hangover from initial
>>> development?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2/ When I put this into Eclipse, I get a dialog box about the license of
>> a
>>> plugin - presumably build-helper-maven-plugin.
>>>
>>> Eclispe seemed to say it was EPL (version?) but their website suggests
>> MIT.
>>>
>>> Could you take a look at that please? Both those license need an
>>> acknowledgement and EPl is "weak copyleft". Because they aren't include
>>> directly, a DEPENDENCIES file is enough, not NOTICE.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
>> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>>
>
Re: jena-permissions POM and plugin
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
Technically those Maven plugins are never included in any Jena distribution
nor used by the compiled product, hence no NOTICE requirement should be
needed as those generally only apply to distribution, not use.
On 9 May 2015 10:41, "Claude Warren" <cl...@xenei.com> wrote:
> Should I add the build-helper-maven-plugin to jena-parent?
>
> Seems like the MIT license would require that all modules that use it will
> be required to update their notice files. On the other hand, I see that it
> is better to have all plugins managed in one place.
>
> Claude
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Claude,
> >
> > 1/ The jena-permissions POM has items that override jena-parent, and the
> > apache parent which as repositories. Also, jena-parent does the version
> > management for plugins. Presumably this is just hangover from initial
> > development?
> >
> >
> > 2/ When I put this into Eclipse, I get a dialog box about the license of
> a
> > plugin - presumably build-helper-maven-plugin.
> >
> > Eclispe seemed to say it was EPL (version?) but their website suggests
> MIT.
> >
> > Could you take a look at that please? Both those license need an
> > acknowledgement and EPl is "weak copyleft". Because they aren't include
> > directly, a DEPENDENCIES file is enough, not NOTICE.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>
Re: jena-permissions POM and plugin
Posted by Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com>.
Should I add the build-helper-maven-plugin to jena-parent?
Seems like the MIT license would require that all modules that use it will
be required to update their notice files. On the other hand, I see that it
is better to have all plugins managed in one place.
Claude
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> Claude,
>
> 1/ The jena-permissions POM has items that override jena-parent, and the
> apache parent which as repositories. Also, jena-parent does the version
> management for plugins. Presumably this is just hangover from initial
> development?
>
>
> 2/ When I put this into Eclipse, I get a dialog box about the license of a
> plugin - presumably build-helper-maven-plugin.
>
> Eclispe seemed to say it was EPL (version?) but their website suggests MIT.
>
> Could you take a look at that please? Both those license need an
> acknowledgement and EPl is "weak copyleft". Because they aren't include
> directly, a DEPENDENCIES file is enough, not NOTICE.
>
> Andy
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
>
--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
Re: jena-permissions POM and plugin
Posted by Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com>.
Andy,
I have added you to the cc list as I am so tardy in replying.
I am checking the license and I can only find the MIT reference (which is,
from my reading, category-a). I will be checking directly with the dev
team to find out what license they are currently under. How did you get
Eclipse to tell you the license type for the plugin? I would like to be
able to point the dev team to the other license info so they can remove it
in future.
I will add Codehaus information to the Notice file. In looking through the
NOTICE files and found that all had text like "This product includes
software developed by...". that does not seem to be the proper phrasing
for use of a plugin during packaging phase. I will add that to start with
and reference the MIT license as that is the one most readily human
accessible.
As for the repositories and version numbers, yes hold over and will be
removed.
Claude
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> Claude,
>
> 1/ The jena-permissions POM has items that override jena-parent, and the
> apache parent which as repositories. Also, jena-parent does the version
> management for plugins. Presumably this is just hangover from initial
> development?
>
>
> 2/ When I put this into Eclipse, I get a dialog box about the license of a
> plugin - presumably build-helper-maven-plugin.
>
> Eclispe seemed to say it was EPL (version?) but their website suggests MIT.
>
> Could you take a look at that please? Both those license need an
> acknowledgement and EPl is "weak copyleft". Because they aren't include
> directly, a DEPENDENCIES file is enough, not NOTICE.
>
> Andy
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
>
--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren