Closed michael-o closed 2 years ago
I suppose you meant the following ?
<name>The Apache Software License, Version 2.0</name>
I suppose you meant the following ?
<name>The Apache Software License, Version 2.0</name>
Yes, that snippet is wrong.
Per https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Licenses the use of a SPDX identifier is now recommended so given https://spdx.org/licenses/Apache-2.0.html it should actually be "Apache-2.0".
Per https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Licenses the use of a SPDX identifier is now recommended so given https://spdx.org/licenses/Apache-2.0.html it should actually be "Apache-2.0".
This maybe true, but MPIR's dependency report aggregates by name alomst every one is using the canonical name, not the SPDX id.
It's not clear why we should honor some random tool's behavior over the canonical recommendation from the specification for the file in which this data exists.
Perhaps recommended to that tool that they should normalize the data toward the SPDX identifiers rather than naive name-based grouping.
Ideally, the MPIR's dependency report would read https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/blob/master/json/licenses.json and allows aggregating the full name with the short identifiers.
Ideally, the MPIR's dependency report would read https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/blob/master/json/licenses.json and allows aggregating the full name with the short identifiers.
True, didn't know about this one. Please raise a JIRA issue for this. Surprisingly, this does not match the name in the original license.
The license name in the POM is wrong. It must read: Apache License, Version 2.0
See: https://github.com/apache/maven-apache-parent/blob/e3a75f29af4e8ab443ee4f2ee702c766a2f017f2/pom.xml#L45-L49