On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 15:29, Vincent Massol wrote: > I'd prefer to keep the standard <some name>-<version>.<extension> (i.e. > keep version the last element of the artifact name). > > > > > Where lic id might be standard abbreviations/ids used at > > > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ > > > > Isn't it possible that a dual-license project has the dual license > defined in a single license file? Does it have to be in 2 files?
I don't think there is any legal reason we can't do that, but don't quote me on that. It would certainly be easier in one file. > > The <license/> element in the POM would probably have to be augmented > to > > have an id things mesh. We only have a <name/> and <url/> element > right > > now. We definitely need to deal with multiple lics. But I still think we could use an <id/> element for the <license/> element. > -Vincent > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://maven.apache.org happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder ... -- Thoreau --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
