On 16/05/2010 02:00, Brian Fox wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Benson Margulies<[email protected]> wrote: Yes, these are good ideas.
Well, I'm not sure this is just about "good ideas", it sounds more like a legal requirement. This being said, I'm not a lawyer, it's just the way I interpret the BSD licence (for example) when I read it.
We currently require that the license be specified in the pom but aren't validating that it is correct automatically.
As far as I know, only the licence name is required, for example <name>BSD</name>. I've been saying this in this thread before, but that's just a *type* of licence, not an actual licence. What would be the point of the BSD licence otherwise? Self-propagation of its own terms? The important part is the acknowledgement of the copyright holder.
Anyway, pending further development of the plugin and repository management, for my next release, I'll put the text full text of the licence in the <comments/> element within the POM file (it's only about 30 lines). It seems reasonable.
Best wishes, Bruno. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
