If you open up the wrapper-delta-pack that the appassembler depends on, doc/license.txt describes the license it was released under. It is not GPL or LGPL as asserted in this thread.
None of this discussion is really relevant for this list... except maybe that pointing to a URL for a license in the POM is not a good idea. If someone wants to take up that issue, I would recommend changing it to a reference within the repository, so that we can ensure some list of immutable licenses. - Brett On 13/06/2011, at 4:03 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > So, the lesson I take from this is that the appassembler would never > have been releasable at Apache, and that releasing it at codehaus > without getting the author (who happens to be in Japan) to provide an > unambiguous license was perhaps ill-advised. > > > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> just an idea: what about extending the maven-release-plugin to ask for a >>> license if the pom doesn't contain a <license> section? >> >> In principle, this would be a good feature to add to a verification >> tool like Rat. >> >> In this case, JSW has a <license> section but that license contains >> meta-licensing information (a way for a user to obtain a license, >> rather than a direct license) >> >> Robert >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- Brett Porter [email protected] http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
