If the consumer pom is published at a public URL, a copyright notice is reasonable. How the file was created or edited doesn't really enter into it.
Now that I think about it though, why do we have to use a comment for the copyright notice? This feels like something we should have as an element in pom.xml itself parallel to license. On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 7:58 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Not sure it can really be problematic until it is considered as sources - > and it is not. > But 100% agree it can be neat to keep it at some point but then it means > flagging them as "keepable" to not keep the comment on build block which > will be stripped for example. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog > <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | > Old > Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064> > > > Le dim. 9 févr. 2025 à 20:30, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> a écrit : > > > Hi, > > > > I and Robert did a Maven 4 presentation at Jfokus here in Sweden earlier > > this week. One of the main topics was of course build/consumer POM. > > After the talk we were approached by a couple of people from the audience > > who raised concern about comments in the build POM being removed in the > > published consumer POM. They thought that could be problematic for larger > > corporations who want, for example, copyright comments. > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > > > /Anders > > -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elh...@ibiblio.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
