On 17 September 2014 02:39, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was using <rat:approvedLicense familyName="jQuery UI CSS MIT"/> in ant > can't find similar tag in maven ... :( > > 0.10 in maven behave the same way as 0.11 > > I was using report ant target, and was interpreting "no unknown licenses" > as succes > this is why it works for me
There is a difference between unknown licences and unapproved (but known) licences. Unknown licences can be fixed by adding the appropriate <license> entries. These are added to the defaults (by default). Unapproved licenses can be fixed using approvedLicense entries, but these currently replace the defaults. There is currently no way to add to the default approved licenses in Ant or Maven. > Thanks for investigation :) > > On 17 September 2014 08:09, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We are using rat 0.10 in our ant build >> Will check if maven plugin 0.10 works >> >> On 17 September 2014 07:28, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 16 September 2014 14:08, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > actually it works in ant >>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/branches/3.0.x/build.xml >>> > (search for report_rat) >>> >>> Are you sure? >>> >>> I could not get it to work with Ant using 0.11 nor using current trunk. >>> It behaved the same as Maven, i.e. one cannot merge new license >>> families into the default approved list >>> >>> And as far as I can tell, the code that defines the approved licenses >>> is shared between Ant and Maven so it's not surprising that they >>> behave the same. >>> >>> > was hoping to get similar functionality with maven >>> > >>> > On 16 September 2014 19:26, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Yes, In addition to default ones >>> >> >>> >> On 16 September 2014 19:12, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> So the issue is that you want to be able to mark the new licenses as >>> >>> approved - is that correct? >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 September 2014 12:20, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I get report like this (some lines are omitted): >>> >>> > >>> >>> > 0 Unknown Licenses >>> >>> > >>> >>> > ******************************* >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Unapproved licenses: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/js/jquery.ui.menubar.js >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/css/theme_om/jquery-ui-1.10.4.custom.css >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/css/jquery.ui.menubar.css >>> >>> > >>> >>> > ***************************************************** >>> >>> > Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL >>> >>> > Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B >>> >>> > Compressed archives will be marked A >>> >>> > Notices, licenses etc will be marked N >>> >>> > AL >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/upload/library.xsd >>> >>> > AL >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/upload/library.xml >>> >>> > B >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/default/_big_profile_pic.jpg >>> >>> > ...................................... >>> >>> > !MIT+GPL >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/js/jquery.ui.menubar.js >>> >>> > ...................................... >>> >>> > !MIT >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/css/theme_om/jquery-ui-1.10.4.custom.css >>> >>> > ...................................... >>> >>> > !MIT+GPL >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> /home/solomax/work/openmeetings/trunk/singlewebapp/openmeetings-web/src/main/webapp/css/jquery.ui.menubar.css >>> >>> > ...................................... >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On 16 September 2014 18:01, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> On 16 September 2014 08:04, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com >>> > >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> > Hello All, >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Sorry for the long email :( >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Today I added apache-rat-plugin (0.11) to our maven build ( >>> >>> >> > openmeetings.apache.org project) >>> >>> >> > We have couple of jQuery files in our sources licensed under MIT >>> and >>> >>> >> > MIT+GPL and not recognized by apache-rat-plugin. >>> >>> >> > So I have added custom licences: >>> >>> >> > <licenses> >>> >>> >> > <license >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> implementation="org.apache.rat.analysis.license.SimplePatternBasedLicense"> >>> >>> >> > <licenseFamilyCategory>MIT+GPL</licenseFamilyCategory> >>> >>> >> > <licenseFamilyName>MIT and GPL v2</licenseFamilyName> >>> >>> >> > <notes></notes> >>> >>> >> > <patterns> >>> >>> >> > <pattern>Dual licensed under the MIT or GPL Version 2 >>> >>> licenses.</pattern> >>> >>> >> > </patterns> >>> >>> >> > </license> >>> >>> >> > <license >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> implementation="org.apache.rat.analysis.license.SimplePatternBasedLicense"> >>> >>> >> > <licenseFamilyCategory>MIT</licenseFamilyCategory> >>> >>> >> > <licenseFamilyName>MIT</licenseFamilyName> >>> >>> >> > <notes></notes> >>> >>> >> > <patterns> >>> >>> >> > <pattern>Licensed MIT</pattern> >>> >>> >> > </patterns> >>> >>> >> > </license> >>> >>> >> > </licenses> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> OK >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > <licenseFamilies> >>> >>> >> > <licenseFamily >>> >>> >> implementation="org.apache.rat.license.SimpleLicenseFamily"> >>> >>> >> > <familyName>MIT and GPL v2</familyName> >>> >>> >> > </licenseFamily> >>> >>> >> > <licenseFamily >>> >>> >> implementation="org.apache.rat.license.SimpleLicenseFamily"> >>> >>> >> > <familyName>MIT</familyName> >>> >>> >> > </licenseFamily> >>> >>> >> > </licenseFamilies> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> What happens if you omit the <licenseFamilies> section? >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > Unfortunately after that Apache licensed files are not approved >>> any >>> >>> more >>> >>> >> > ******************************* >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Unapproved licenses: >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > pom.xml >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > ******************************* >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Archives: >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > ***************************************************** >>> >>> >> > Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL >>> >>> >> > Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B >>> >>> >> > Compressed archives will be marked A >>> >>> >> > Notices, licenses etc will be marked N >>> >>> >> > !AL pom.xml >>> >>> >> > N CHANGELOG >>> >>> >> > N NOTICE >>> >>> >> > N README >>> >>> >> > N LICENSE >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > adding >>> >>> >> > <addDefaultLicenseMatchers>true</addDefaultLicenseMatchers> >>> >>> >> > also doesn't help >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Is there any option to add licences to default ones? >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Thanks in advance >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > -- >>> >>> >> > WBR >>> >>> >> > Maxim aka solomax >>> >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > -- >>> >>> > WBR >>> >>> > Maxim aka solomax >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> WBR >>> >> Maxim aka solomax >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > WBR >>> > Maxim aka solomax >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> WBR >> Maxim aka solomax >> > > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax
