If the XML looks like:
<resource name='src/test/resources/elements/dummy.jar' type='ARCHIVE'>"
<license approval="true" family="MIT " id="MIT" name="The MIT License"/>
<license approval="true" family="AL " id="AL" name="Apache License
Version 2.0"/>
</resource>
The output as defined in the default.xslt would be:
A src/test/resources/elements/dummy.jar
MIT MIT The MIT License
AL AL Apache License Version 2.0
So all the enclosed licenses are reported for the jar itself. If you want
a report of what is in the jar you can run Rat with the jar as an argument.
There is no change to the XML format (resources don't have child resources)
and all reports that have been modified for multiple license reporting,
should work without modification.
Claude
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:53 AM P. Ottlinger <pottlin...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Claude,
>
> Am 03.05.24 um 07:26 schrieb Claude Warren:
> >
> > <resource name='src/test/resources/elements/dummy.jar' type='ARCHIVE'/>"
> >
> > This proposal would, in cases where licenses are discovered, add the
> > license entries as with STANDARD resource types. For example:
> >
> > <resource name='src/test/resources/elements/dummy.jar' type='ARCHIVE'>"
> > <license approval="true" family="MIT " id="MIT" name="The MIT
> License"/>
> > <license approval="true" family="AL " id="AL" name="Apache License
> > Version 2.0"/>
> > </resource>
> >
>
> how would the report on System.out look like?
>
> a) "exploded"
>
> A Foo.jar
> GPL3 GPL3 GNU General Public License, version 3
>
> S src/test/java/foo/bar/MyClientTest.java
> GPL3 GPL3 GNU General Public License, version 3
>
> S src/test/java/foo/bar/YourClientTest.java
> GPL3 GPL3 GNU General Public License, version 3
>
> b) hierarchy?
>
> A Foo.jar
> GPL3 GPL3 GNU General Public License, version 3
>
> S Foo.jar://src/test/java/foo/bar/MyClientTest.java
> GPL3 GPL3 GNU General Public License, version 3
> or with with indentation
> S src/test/java/foo/bar/YourClientTest.java
> GPL3 GPL3 GNU General Public License, version 3
>
> <snip>
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> I like the proposed way to handle archives - if this is documented for
> our users it's a great way forward and a meaningful extension to RAT.
>
> Thanks for looking into the issue!
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
>
--
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
