|Re: [iam-dev] Re: [technology-pmc] Eclipse IAM: Possible need for 3rd party dependency approval|
Say some project Foo's POM declares a requirement for builder/plugin Bar. As I understand it, to build Foo, Bar will have to be downloaded and installed. The user asking for a build of Foo then will, unknowingly cause the download and install of Bar without ever having been told about the licenses or be given a chance to agree. I don't think it matters that the POM states this requirement. It does not state the license nor does it present itself to the user.
I certainly understand that this is a bummer and am not suggesting that everyone have to go through this workflow. I am saying that the maven tools should facilitate prompting the user to accept licenses before they install stuff. You can have a preference to turn that off if you like.
I am also not understanding the relationship here to the maven repo discussion. Presumeably the repo can contain all manner of stuff under all manner of licenses. There is no way the IP team can approve the blanket consumption of everything in the repo. Stepping back though I think the question itself does not make sense. if you put the license accpetance question in the hands of the user then maven is just acting as a broker. the POM states the need and the user agrees to the license. Nothing in Maven itself has the dependency.
For bits of the maven integration projets (IAM, m2e and any other project at eclipse being built with Maven) it is an interesting question as to what dependenceis they can declare in their POMs. For example is is allowed for some m2e project to say that it needs a GPL maven plugin to be built? That effectively forces community members to install the GPL thing into their Eclipse IDE in order to build the project. That;s a good one for the IP team.
Jeff Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
Just to give some background, generally, Maven allow to specify external configuration in its global configs, user's config, as well as per-project. Depending on configuration, Maven can just go ahead and download and even execute 3rd party components and it is not always obvious when this is triggered or what repository those components came from.I think that from the end user point of view it is fair to say that when user to choose to import some project in Eclipse workspace, then he basically allowed to go outside and grab everything that project declared. But it would be great to get common understanding from Eclipse Legal team on that.There is also some local configuration on Eclipse side where user could declare additional repositories and other external stuff that can be used by Maven, which also imply that user confirmed that. For example, in M2E project we have separate feature with the reference to the Maven central repository that is installed using standard update mechanism, and show the license or agreement info at the installation time, but such agreement info may not be obviously noticeable to all end users and yet this link is very critical for the core functionality.regards, Eugene Abel Muiño Vizcaino wrote:Hello Wayne, El 18/12/2008, a las 17:09, Wayne Beaton wrote:Hi Abel.It sounds to me like the "central Maven repository" is a potential "exempt pre-requisite". Which means that IAM should be able to include some knowledge of how to find and access that respository. Ultimately, we'll need to get EMO approval on that.That would be a manageable solution if approved by the EMO.Further, my sense is that by adding a link to another repository (or however it is that you do this sort of thing), the user is giving IAM explicit permission to access the archetypes available from that repository.I agree with that.Other artifacts downloaded by maven would fall in the same category (the user enters the information to locate them or otherwise requests their use, so he is allowing IAM to work on his behalf).FWIW, it's true that p2 can be used to install arbitrary things without the user's consent. However, that's not how it *is* being used (or rather how it should be used by an Eclipse project). A company could take p2 and use it as part of their project to install whatever they want; this would be an issue between that company and their end users.Of course do not support or encourage installing anything without the user consent. It was my perception that by providing the information to identify the archetype/artifact the user was already allowing access. You summarized it perfectly above.Does this make sense/help?Sure. I think these can solve all the IP concerns being addressed and can be managed by the IAM team. Thank you very much!We only need EMO approval regarding the maven central repository. How shall we proceed with this task?Wayne Abel Muiño Vizcaino wrote:Hello Wayne, El 12/12/2008, a las 19:58, Wayne Beaton escribió:Does the user enter the URL for the Archetype, or is the URL somehow embedded in the software?If the URLs are provided by the user, then there should be no problem.It is a bit complicated... there is not such thing as "the URL". The user only declares the archetype to use. That declaration is then looked up in an artifact repository (by default maven central repository, but it is considered good practice to use a corporate "mirror"). The actual repository used depends on a set of rules set by the end user.I've been thinking that writing an overview of how IAM/maven operates and relate that to the policy for 3rd party dependencies (http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf) could help us moving forward. What do you think?If the IAM project contains built-in URLs to existing repositories, then we'll need a works-with CQ (probably one for each URL, but this may require additional thought). We'll have to get EMO agreement.It should not be a problem from our side if it is limited to the url or the maven central repository. However, as noted above, that repository might not be used at all (and as stated previously, it is impossible to review every possible artifact in a maven repository).In either case, the download needs to be obvious. We need IAM to show a dialog saying something to the effect of "you're about to download some code not vetted by the Eclipse IP process" or something to that effect (it might be enough to say that the code is "external"). If the thing being downloaded has a license attached to it, the user needs to be given an explicit opportunity to view and accept that license.Technically, that can be done, although I'm very worried about the resulting user experience. What would you consider "obvious"? Showing the download progress? A note on the user interface?FWIW, Buckminster and P2 both do this.No attack intended on any of these projects.But we use the P2 director (headless) application to assemble out target platform (installing EPL'ed and non EPL'ed bundles) and it does not show any license agreement.And I strongly believe that this is the right thing to do (from an end-user point of view, I've explicitly declared what I want to use, so I know what I'm getting into)._______________________________________________ iam-dev mailing list iam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iam-dev_______________________________________________ technology-pmc mailing list technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc_______________________________________________ technology-pmc mailing list technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
Back to the top