Am I doing something wrong? Is it possible to add approved licenses to default ones?
On 16 September 2014 20:08, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> wrote: > actually it works in ant > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/branches/3.0.x/build.xml > (search for report_rat) > was hoping to get similar functionality with maven > > On 16 September 2014 19:26, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, In addition to default ones >> >> On 16 September 2014 19:12, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So the issue is that you want to be able to mark the new licenses as >>> approved - is that correct? >>> >>> On 16 September 2014 12:20, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > I get report like this (some lines are omitted): >>> > >>> > 0 Unknown Licenses >>> > >>> > ******************************* >>> > >>> > Unapproved licenses: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/js/jquery.ui.menubar.js >>> > >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/css/theme_om/jquery-ui-1.10.4.custom.css >>> > >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/css/jquery.ui.menubar.css >>> > >>> > ***************************************************** >>> > Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL >>> > Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B >>> > Compressed archives will be marked A >>> > Notices, licenses etc will be marked N >>> > AL >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/upload/library.xsd >>> > AL >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/upload/library.xml >>> > B >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/default/_big_profile_pic.jpg >>> > ...................................... >>> > !MIT+GPL >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/js/jquery.ui.menubar.js >>> > ...................................... >>> > !MIT >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/css/theme_om/jquery-ui-1.10.4.custom.css >>> > ...................................... >>> > !MIT+GPL >>> > >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/css/jquery.ui.menubar.css >>> > ...................................... >>> > >>> > >>> > On 16 September 2014 18:01, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On 16 September 2014 08:04, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> > Hello All, >>> >> > >>> >> > Sorry for the long email :( >>> >> > >>> >> > Today I added apache-rat-plugin (0.11) to our maven build ( >>> >> > openmeetings.apache.org project) >>> >> > We have couple of jQuery files in our sources licensed under MIT and >>> >> > MIT+GPL and not recognized by apache-rat-plugin. >>> >> > So I have added custom licences: >>> >> > <licenses> >>> >> > <license >>> >> > >>> >> >>> implementation="org.apache.rat.analysis.license.SimplePatternBasedLicense"> >>> >> > <licenseFamilyCategory>MIT+GPL</licenseFamilyCategory> >>> >> > <licenseFamilyName>MIT and GPL v2</licenseFamilyName> >>> >> > <notes></notes> >>> >> > <patterns> >>> >> > <pattern>Dual licensed under the MIT or GPL Version 2 >>> licenses.</pattern> >>> >> > </patterns> >>> >> > </license> >>> >> > <license >>> >> > >>> >> >>> implementation="org.apache.rat.analysis.license.SimplePatternBasedLicense"> >>> >> > <licenseFamilyCategory>MIT</licenseFamilyCategory> >>> >> > <licenseFamilyName>MIT</licenseFamilyName> >>> >> > <notes></notes> >>> >> > <patterns> >>> >> > <pattern>Licensed MIT</pattern> >>> >> > </patterns> >>> >> > </license> >>> >> > </licenses> >>> >> >>> >> OK >>> >> >>> >> > <licenseFamilies> >>> >> > <licenseFamily >>> >> implementation="org.apache.rat.license.SimpleLicenseFamily"> >>> >> > <familyName>MIT and GPL v2</familyName> >>> >> > </licenseFamily> >>> >> > <licenseFamily >>> >> implementation="org.apache.rat.license.SimpleLicenseFamily"> >>> >> > <familyName>MIT</familyName> >>> >> > </licenseFamily> >>> >> > </licenseFamilies> >>> >> >>> >> What happens if you omit the <licenseFamilies> section? >>> >> >>> >> > Unfortunately after that Apache licensed files are not approved any >>> more >>> >> > ******************************* >>> >> > >>> >> > Unapproved licenses: >>> >> > >>> >> > pom.xml >>> >> > >>> >> > ******************************* >>> >> > >>> >> > Archives: >>> >> > >>> >> > ***************************************************** >>> >> > Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL >>> >> > Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B >>> >> > Compressed archives will be marked A >>> >> > Notices, licenses etc will be marked N >>> >> > !AL pom.xml >>> >> > N CHANGELOG >>> >> > N NOTICE >>> >> > N README >>> >> > N LICENSE >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > adding >>> >> > <addDefaultLicenseMatchers>true</addDefaultLicenseMatchers> >>> >> > also doesn't help >>> >> > >>> >> > Is there any option to add licences to default ones? >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks in advance >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > WBR >>> >> > Maxim aka solomax >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > WBR >>> > Maxim aka solomax >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> WBR >> Maxim aka solomax >> > > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
