Hi Paul,
interesting you know someone who can tell all about software licenses. This is something which returns every now and than. I think about 6 month ago Mark Struberg and I had a similar discussion and thought of extending the ianal-m-p[1], which should make it easier to detect if there are license-collissions based on the code and/or pom Right now it's just checking if the LICENSE-file is there for the plugin. If we can define some rulesets, we should be able to improve this plugin. Maybe worth investigating... - Robert [1] http://mojo.codehaus.org/ianal-maven-plugin/ > Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:35:50 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] License of parent POM > > 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 > >
