My take away from our discussion was that the license metadata
(e,g. [1]) included in the POM files was the best match for about
files.
While not strictly part of the metadata, I would also consider a
comment in the POM file acceptable (this seems to be a common
practice), e.g. [2,3].
Note that I've opened a bug to discuss and put a file resolution
on the issue [4]
Wayne
[1]
http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Corg.robolectric%7Cshadows-httpclient%7C3.1.4%7Cjar
[2]
http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Cio.vertx%7Cvertx-ext-parent%7C23%7Cpom
[3]
http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Ccom.github.sebhoss.bom%7Chttpclient-bom%7C2016.02.07%7Cpom
[4] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=507786
On 21/11/16 06:54 PM, Jody Garnett
wrote:
Quick update, it looks like the maven convention
of:
LICENSE.txt - project license
NOTICE.txt - third-party licenses
Matches up with the requirement for about_files (which
comes from the eclipse plugin infrastructure where there is a
GUI to present this info to users).
I found this example to be clear to follow:
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
