Implement pom.xml definitions for compliance with OSSRH #2

[lewismc]

Hi Folks (specifically @JohnLCaron ),
This is a pull request which will allow us to distribute this artifact via Maven Central as per the workflows which we have been working to. The proposed changes fit in with the existing workflow but you will now see that javadoc.jar and sources.jar artifacts accompany the usual .jar
Thanks
Lewis

[dopplershift]

Thanks for the contribution. Can you correct the license you specify in the pom.xml? You made it Apache, but in reality the original jj2000 developers used their own license, which is specified in the COPYRIGHT file in the base of the repo.

[lewismc]

Hi Ryan... Doh, yes will do so. Sending PR ASAP thanks for review.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Ryan May notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks for the contribution. Can you correct the license you specify in
the pom.xml? You made it Apache, but in reality the original jj2000
developers used their own license, which is specified in the COPYRIGHT file
in the base of the repo.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3 (comment).

Lewis

[lewismc]

hi @dopplershift I've removed the license but retainer the license markup. The reasoning is that there is a COPYRIGHT, but no License I can see. If you see differently then please inform and I will update again.

[dopplershift]

When I read the COPYRIGHT file, it sounds like a license:

• Original authors assume no liability
• Can only use this code for jpeg2k implementations
• The original copyright notice needs to be distributed with code and derivative works.

[lewismc]

Hi Ryan, if you have a suggestion about which license then I would be only
too happy to add it.
I'll update the PR for he versioning in 5 mins. Sorry about that, it was so
I could publish the artifact to central.

On Thursday, April 23, 2015, Ryan May notifications@github.com wrote:

When I read the COPYRIGHT file, it sounds like a license:

• Original authors assume no liability
• Can only use this code for jpeg2k implementations
• The original copyright notice needs to be distributed with code and
  derivative works.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3 (comment).

Lewis

[dopplershift]

Personally, I'd just call it the jj2000 license. If it needs to be a known license, then I'd leave it blank.

I can take care of that later if you don't want to bother.

[lewismc]

@dopplershift done :)
Thank you

[dopplershift]

Thanks for working this out!

[lewismc]

no problems