That's my understanding as well for category-a licenses.
In DEPENDENCIES is nice but nothing in NOTICE is needed.
Seems that Eclipse going on about EPL was not accurate.
Andy
On 09/05/15 15:18, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
Technically those Maven plugins are never included in any Jena distribution
nor used by the compiled product, hence no NOTICE requirement should be
needed as those generally only apply to distribution, not use.
On 9 May 2015 10:41, "Claude Warren" <[email protected]> wrote:
Should I add the build-helper-maven-plugin to jena-parent?
Seems like the MIT license would require that all modules that use it will
be required to update their notice files. On the other hand, I see that it
is better to have all plugins managed in one place.
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
