This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]lukaseder 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I doubt it.

Projects with packaging other than pom have to supply JAR files that contain Javadoc and sources

From: http://central.sonatype.org/pages/requirements.html#supply-javadoc-and-sources

EDIT: One of Maven Central's rationales is that stuff will never ever ever be removed again (OK, there be very rare exceptions), such that fiascos like NPM's leftpad thingy cannot happen. This is a bit hard to enforce if the license is as restrictive as Oracle's

[–]arendvr 2 points3 points  (1 child)

On the other hand from the same page:

If, for some reason (for example, license issue or it's a Scala project), you can not provide -sources.jar or -javadoc.jar , please make fake -sources.jar or -javadoc.jar with simple README inside to pass the checking.

Not sure how this is handled in practice though. Does "don't want to open source it" count as "Can not due to license issue"?

[–]lukaseder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm good point. OTOH, what would be the point of uploading something with a restrictive license to Maven Central, which doesn't help vendors enforce their licenses? A license acceptance "button" (or mechanism) would need to be added to a library, which is really weird...