I personally omit the <licenses> element when there are no applicable licenses. But it sounds like you'd want to be able to distinguish between ’there are no applicable licenses’ and ’there may or may not be applicable licenses’?
Nils. > Op 27 mrt 2024, om 16:38 heeft Timothy Stone <tst...@petmystone.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > I'm trying to improve the use of POM meta-data such as <licenses> in our > internal projects. > > However, proprietary code, i.e., "unlicensed" code, is not explicitly > documented in the POM Reference[1]. > > A search of the mailing list did not turn up any discussions in the past > (though how far back that search looked may be in question). > > The SPDX does not recognize "UNLICENSED" (though NPM does) and NOT to be > confused with "The Unlicense" (SPDX "Unlicense"). > > How does the community manage this? Is this a documentation PR opportunity > based on feedback here? A best practice is sought. > > The explicit recommendation for documenting the recommended pattern in the > POM would be valuable to many organizations. > > Thanks! > Tim > > [1]. https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#licenses > > -- > Timothy Stone > ============= > Some call me ... Tim. > Husband, Father, Blogger, OSS, Wargamer, Home Brewer, and D&D > Find me on GitLab | GitHub | Linked In | MeWe | GnuPG --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
