On 5/18/10 2:50 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote: > > > On 18/05/2010 18:25, Justin Edelson wrote: >> I thought it was well-established that you should include the license >> inside binary and source artifacts. >> What exactly is your reason for >> thinking this isn't a good idea? Saying that it isn't "obvious" doesn't >> really count IMHO as this is highly subjective. > > I'm not sure if that's well-established. There are a number of artifacts > in the central repository that clearly don't, so that's subjective too. We can't change the past. But I think (almost) every Apache project is now doing the right thing.
> You're right, the only reason I think it's better outside the jar itself > is to make it a bit more visible. Whether the licence is within the > jar's META-INF or next to the jar is a minute detail indeed. Having it > within the jar would make it distributed with the jar of course (which > is a good thing). > > Clarification of the documentation and/or mechanisms on how to > redistribute the licences properly with the software is what I'm > suggesting. In terms of core Maven mechanism, that could consist of an > improvement with respect to the convention over configuration principle > that Maven follows. I agree that the documentation can be improved with respect to this. You can certainly submit some documentation patches on this point. I'm not sure what "core" changes would be involved. There's probably some possible enforcer plugin, but ultimately it's not Maven's job to interpret the semantics of a license - that's something developers need to be responsible for. Justin > > Best wishes, > > Bruno. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
