In a discussion about LICENSE/NOTICE generation from maven remote
resources plugin the result was a blocking issue in the pom content:
there is no way to specify the copyright owner for a given artifact, it
only allow us to specify the licenses.
I just wanted to share with you this issue, so maybe you can consider
some improvement in the next pom models.
Stefano
Stefano Bagnara ha scritto:
Jukka Zitting ha scritto:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm simply saying that I agree with David that each package should
have its
own specific NOTICE/LICENSE but IMHO at the moment it doesn't worth the
effort until maven will give us a better solution.
Fair enough.
AFAIK the current Maven tools are not good enough (even on a design
level, for example the POM has no concept of copyright attributions)
for automating the generation of proper NOTICE and LICENSE files.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Good point!
It currently uses the template:
"developed by $organization.name" that most time is a way to express who
is the copyright holder, but this is not always true and "developed by"
is not the same as a "copyright" statement.
For sure it would be better if the pom.xml allowed people to declare
also who is the copyright owner somewhere.
Stefano
PS: I'll forward this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so someone can hear us arguing ;-)
http://markmail.org/message/udrprcgvx5r57p3j
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-330
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
