That sounds like a good idea when the code is actually licensed under the “Companyname Commercial License”, but if code is proprietary and there is no desire to license it to anyone, it should not be necessary to create such a license. Code is proprietary by default, you only need to license it when you want to define under which circumstances and in what ways others are also allowed to use the code. No license means others are not allowed to use it.
Nils. > Op 27 mrt 2024, om 20:11 heeft Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> het > volgende geschreven: > > I use name=„Companyname Commercial License“, > url=„https://www.companyname.com/terms“, distribution=„manual“ but also think > it would be good to have standard distribution and classifier for properitary > code. > > Nils Breunese wrote on 27. Mar 2024 20:02 (GMT +01:00): >> 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’? > > Gruss > Bernd > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
