---- Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Jan 10, 2008 8:51 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry to repeat myself again, but I really do not think the > > maven-remote-resources approach is > > even legal. IANAL, but as I understand things, we *must* not use this. > > Simon, > > I understand your concern to mean, that the NOTICE file generated by > the mrr plugin doesn't > match what we would otherwise want to have as the NOTICE file. If > that's the case, then I agree > with you, that we should not use it by default *right now*. However, > that's also something that > can be adressed by the mrr plugin itself or by a particular subclass > that we might create. > > Therefore, I stick to my opinion that it is the better way to go.
No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* *never* have information about files in other maven modules, ie data should *never* be pulled from other poms in order to generate the NOTICE file. As this is the core concept of the maven-remote-resources, we should therefore *never* use the maven-remote-resources plugin. We *could* possibly debate whether the LICENSE file could be pulled from somewhere else rather than have a copy checked in to each maven module. But the whole *concept* of NOTICE *generation* using data from other modules just seems wrong and legally dangerous. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
