Instead of using the "addDefaultLicenseMatchers" setting, we developed a practice of excluding non-Apache licenses from the checklist of the license checker. A couple of examples:
- BSD license: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-13574/parent/pom.xml#L889 - Another BSD license: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-13574/parent/pom.xml#L984 - JetBrains sources: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-13574/parent/pom.xml#L903 - the list goes on and on, check all the exclusions of the license checker: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-13574/parent/pom.xml#L842 Have we ever tried to use the "addDefaultLicenseMatchers" setting instead? - Denis On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:25 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Igniters, > > I was adding a missing license header to some sources that were included > in our repository and found that the license checker rejects the MIT > license (it's compliant with Apache 2.0 > <https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a>). Take these > files as an example that are protected by the MIT license but rejected by > the license checker: > > - > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-13574/docs/_sass/rouge-base16-solarized.scss > - > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-13574/docs/_plugins/asciidoctor-extensions.rb > > > All the checks pass if to set the "addDefaultLicenseMatchers" setting of > the license checker to "true". Presently, that setting is "false": > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-13574/parent/pom.xml#L806 > > Does anybody know why the "addDefaultLicenseMatchers" parameter is set to > "false"? I would go ahead and change it to "true". > > - > Denis >
