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 <[email protected]> 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
