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.
Justin On 5/18/10 1:09 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote: > Hi, > > I've just submitted this issue: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4680 > > However, I'm told this wasn't the right place to submit. I'm not sure. > To me, one of the key features of Apache Maven (if not the main feature) > is its repository mechanism. This makes the redistribution of software > via those repository a core function of Maven. > In addition, Maven's success is largely based on its central repository > I think (would anyone disagree?), which distributes mostly open-source > software, which in turn has licences that apply to its redistribution in > most cases. > > In appears that the distribution model hasn't fully taken into > consideration the problem of licences. Considering that the central > repository is in breach of a number of such OSS licences, I'd say > there's something wrong with the model in that respect (hence filing the > issue with the core framework MNG). > > > On 16/05/10 02:00, Brian Fox wrote: >> What I meant by usually was that if someone wants to include the >> license text, it's done inside the archives. Take a look at any recent >> apache jar for example and you'll find LICENSE and NOTICE prominently >> included. > > Indeed, some projects have it in the META-INF directory, even with the > binary distribution. (It's not bad, but it's not an obvious place. > Putting them along with the POM would make it a bit clearer.) > > There is definitely something wrong with the "convention over > configuration" aspect. Whether that's strictly MNG domain or not is > debatable indeed. However, if you follow the guidelines in the guides > (e.g. licence placed as described in [1]), the licence doesn't end up > either in META-INF or anywhere in the repository. > > Is it just a documentation shortcoming, or is it a flaw in the > architecture of Maven? There definitely is a flaw in the central > repository, since it's clearly redistributing some software without the > adequate licence. > > > I think these things are definitely fixable, and I'm not after an > immediate fix, but I think the issue needs more consideration w.r.t. > documentation or design of Maven, rather than saying it's the packager's > or the repository's problem. > > > Best wishes, > > Bruno. > > > [1] > http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
