Never mind. I see you've already added that file. However, the next in it talks about a NOTICE file?
Something that has always struck me as weird is that the license text we add (for ASF license) is "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under...". Is this right? Is it licensed to ASF really? If you look at the end of the text at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 we should probably say "Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2....". /Anders On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote: > Should probably also be a LICENSE.txt file in the root. I'll add that. > > /Anders > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de>wrote: > >> Hi Anders, >> >> >> > Why is the license stated as BSD in the pom? And why is the license text >> >>> the one from the JDepend project? >>> >> >> The original Link was: >> <license> >> <name>BSD</name> >> <url>http://www.clarkware.com/software/license.txt</url> >> </license> >> </licenses> >> >> which is not available and the link on JDepend Project was in my opinion >> better...but you are right it might be better having ASF-2.0 license. >> >> >> Looking at the source, at least one of the classes has an ASF-2.0 >>> license header. >>> >> >> So i would assume all the files should have Apache Software Foundation >> License 2.0 ? >> >> >> >> >>> I'm -1 for now. >>> >> Ok... >> >> Fixed all files via mvn license:update-file-header... >> All files now have ASF 2.0 license... >> >> Any other things which i missed ? >> >> >> Kind regards >> Karl-Heinz >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >> >
