The Maven site provides a definition in the project descriptor reference (emphasis mine):
This element describes all of the licenses for this project. Each
license is described by a license element, which is then described by
additional elements. Projects should only list the license(s) that
applies to the project and not the licenses that apply to
Maven allows several licenses in its <licenses> block and its meaning is defined as a choice as @Tordanik explained here correctly. (This not undefined as I originally mentioned):
If multiple licenses are listed, it is assumed that the user can select any of them, not that they must accept all.
Yet, this is not something that is explicit and obvious, ...
The standard way is to use sonatypes procedure: http://central.sonatype.org/pages/ossrh-guide.html
It is basically 2 steps:
setup an account with them (free, but you need to tell them about a page you own or belong to)
setup some basic things in your pom or its parent.
For my projects I create a parent-pom in https://github.com/openCage/pfabulist-parent. ...
It's not explicitly defined by Maven anywhere I can find. In practice, however, I would expect it to be an OR constraint. AND constraints are very difficult to follow entirely correctly with many licenses, due to the myriad incompatibilities between each license.
For example, if I specify both CC BY (which is a terrible idea for code) and GPL in my licenses ...
It's not really possible to answer the question about the existence of a maven plugin, somewhere, in some repository. Not all Maven plugins are even on Maven central.
A maven plugin could, certainly, plop a lump of IP into your project with a license that is incompatible with your needs. And no protocol in Maven forces a plugin to announce this in any ...
Assuming that the link to home page is correct and that the source code link from the home page is correct,
I'd think that the CC0-1.0 and Public notes are just wrongly tagged. An unimportant human factor mistake, maybe.
The grave bit is that actually the software might not be under ALv2, because it seems it might be GPL'ed software later disguised as ALv2.
If I understand your question correctly, you can simple add this information to your POM file. The following is an example from the Maven POM reference.
<name>Apache License, Version 2.0</name>
First JavaFX is not using the LGPL but partly under:
the GPL-2.0 with Classpath exception when built from source code for some parts under the moniker OpenJFX
the Oracle Binary Code license when provisioned from Oracle for the rest including the all important runtime
The net effects is that JavaFX as a whole is not open source. Instead this is using a ...