Deploy artifacts to the maven repository about jsr-305

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes please -- the findbugs jsr305 is LGPL and it would be better to have a BSD 
version.

Original comment by [email protected] on 8 Oct 2010 at 5:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes, that would be great. That project is of great use at the moment.

Especially since Intellij Idea will support the annotations of JSR305 in the 
next version:

http://youtrack.jetbrains.net/issue/IDEA-64677

Original comment by [email protected] on 31 Jan 2011 at 8:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The Findbugs project has Maven artifacts for JSR-305:
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/com/google/code/findbugs/jsr305/1.3.9/

Original comment by [email protected] on 11 Apr 2011 at 9:30

[GoogleCodeExporter]

findbugs is lgpl and can't be included without pain in apache 2.0 runtime...

Original comment by [email protected] on 11 Apr 2011 at 11:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@plindner: the com.google.code.findbugs:jsr305 artifact is licensed under 
Apache 2.0:
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/com/google/code/findbugs/jsr305/1.3.9/jsr305-1.3.9
.pom

Original comment by t.broyer on 27 Apr 2011 at 8:26

[GoogleCodeExporter]

ugh, what a mess.

The license for findbugs itself is LGPL

  http://code.google.com/p/findbugs/source/browse/trunk/findbugs/licenses/LICENSE.txt

However findbugs pulls in jsr305 code which is new BSD

  http://code.google.com/p/findbugs/source/browse/trunk/findbugs/licenses/LICENSE-jsr305.txt

I'm not sure why the pom file specifies Apache 2.0 -- Is it coming from the 
findbugs maven plugin, which is Apache 2.0 licensed?

  http://maven-plugins.cvs.sourceforge.net/maven-plugins/maven-plugins/findbugs/

Original comment by [email protected] on 27 Apr 2011 at 9:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Any progress? Would like to see that issue resolved.

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Aug 2011 at 2:17

[GoogleCodeExporter]

FWIW, It would be good that this codebase gets its own license notice and 
copyright too. except a reference to the BSD, there is no copyright, nor notice 
here except in findbugs: 
http://code.google.com/p/findbugs/source/browse/trunk/findbugs/licenses/LICENSE-
jsr305.txt
And there the pointer is to a license template: 
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php not a real license ....

Original comment by [email protected] on 21 Feb 2012 at 4:07

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Perhaps, if all parties agree, the attached file could be checked into the root 
tree as LICENSE.txt?  William Pugh was just a best guess as to the copyright 
holder, as he's the dev listed here and on jcp.org's page: 
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=305#3

Thoughts?

Original comment by [email protected] on 30 Mar 2012 at 7:45

Attachments:

• jsr305-1.3.9.txt

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You either need to include the LICENSE file, or remove the .java source file in 
the jsr305-x.x.x.jar file and only distribute it as a binary file. Currently 
the jar-file contains both source file (without correct license notice) AND 
binary class-files. This violates the BSD license as I understand it. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Original comment by [email protected] on 2 Jan 2013 at 12:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

And see also https://github.com/stephenc/findbugs-annotations which is a 
clean-room implementation of the annotations declared in FindBugs.

Original comment by [email protected] on 18 Feb 2014 at 2:21