Nils Breunese wrote on 27. Mar 2024 20:33 (GMT +01:00):
> That sounds like a good idea when the code is actually licensed under the > “Companyname Commercial License” No, in my case it’s not a existing license (or actually there are of course licenses for the resulting product). But I use the name to make sure: - „commercial“ keeps people from thinking it’s unrestricted (if they happen to get in contact with Pom or repo) - companyname gives a namespace - allows to be included in manifest In the end this is mostly that SBOM and build-reports list all projects together. (A vendor grouping would be better but I think normal maven reports don’t). Not specifying a license has two problems, first it might inherit unwanted licenses from parent, and secondly it makes it harder to find actual not yet documented missing licenses. Therefore I can only recommend to always use a common license even if those Poms and artifacts never are to be exposed to external participants. Gruss Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
