License metadata mismatch: repository LICENSE says Apache-2.0 but published POM declares MIT

[inageryo]

Summary

There appears to be a license inconsistency for com.playtika.maven.plugins:mixin-maven-plugin:1.0.7

• The repository LICENSE file indicates Apache License 2.0
• The published Maven POM metadata declares MIT
• Maven Central / license indexers therefore report MIT

This mismatch is causing confusion for consumers and automated license/compliance tooling.

Affected artifact

• com.playtika.maven.plugins:mixin-maven-plugin:1.0.7

What I’m seeing

1. In the GitHub repo (tag 1.0.7), the LICENSE file content is Apache 2.0.

2. In the repo pom.xml at tag 1.0.7, the <licenses> section declares MIT.

3. Maven Central / artifact metadata surfaces the POM-declared license (MIT), which conflicts with the repository license file.

Why this matters

Many organizations rely on the published POM license metadata and/or repository license files for:

• automated license scanning
• SBOM generation
• compliance policy checks

When these disagree, the component is flagged as "license unclear" and may be blocked.

Expected

The repository license file and the published POM <licenses> should be consistent, and the intended license should be clearly stated.

Request

Could you please confirm the intended license for mixin-maven-plugin and align:

• the repository LICENSE file
• the POM <licenses> metadata (and ideally the artifact published to Maven Central in a future release)

If the project is intended to be dual-licensed, it would help to explicitly document that (and reflect it in the POM metadata).

References

• GitHub repo license file (tag 1.0.7):
  https://github.com/PlaytikaOSS/maven-plugins/blob/1.0.7/LICENSE

• POM in repo (tag 1.0.7):
  https://github.com/PlaytikaOSS/maven-plugins/blob/1.0.7/pom.xml

• Maven Central artifact page:
  https://central.sonatype.com/artifact/com.playtika.maven.plugins/mixin-maven-plugin/1.0.7

[ijusti]

Hello @inageryo
Thanks for mentioning. Will be fixed soon