On 09/07/2010 01:04 PM, Paul Gier wrote:
> On 09/07/2010 12:32 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>> Paul Gier wrote:
>>
>>> I couldn't find any license information currently in the mojo parent
>>> POM. What license should this be under? Apache or MIT?
>>
>> Since you're the one asking for it, any preference?
>>
>> [0] names ASL-2 the preferred one for Codehaus, [1] says MIT...
>>
>> Question for the lawyers, if the parent POM would be ASL, can Mojo
>> plugins still inherit from that and use MIT as their project license?
>>
>>
>> Benjamin
>>
>>
>> [0] http://codehaus.org/customs/licenses.html
>> [1] http://hausmates.codehaus.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Either one is fine, it seems like most of the mojo projects these days
> are going with Apache, so I vote for that one.
>
> Not sure about the legal question. I would think either license in the
> parent would work fine. From the legal view the parent is probably
> treated just like a dependency. The parent pom might have even less of
> a connection than a normal dependency since a dependency could be
> shipped with the application vs. the parent pom is only used during
> build time.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I checked with our lawyer, and he said either license is fine with
either one in the plugin pom since the parent POM is not packaged and
distributed with the plugin. I have added the Apache 2.0 notice to the
mojo parent pom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
