If I have two dependencies:

		<dependency>
			<groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId>
			<artifactId>jackson-core</artifactId>
			<version>2.19.2</version>
		</dependency>
		<dependency>
			<groupId>tools.jackson.core</groupId>
			<artifactId>jackson-core</artifactId>
			<version>3.0.3</version>
		</dependency>

and legitimately want both of them in my SciJava application (when populating an app), the tools.jackson.core artifact will be detected as a newer version of the com.fasterxml.jackson.core artifact because of the shared name.

My feeling is that this is generally incorrect, or at least may be unintentionally hiding some issues.

I see a few options for dealing with this:

1. We could always treat different GAs as different
2. We could add support for a GA rename map to the mojo configuration
3. Mojos, e.g. the PopulateMojoApp, that know the dependencies can make an assessment: if similarly-named artifacts with different groupIds are declared as dependencies (especially non-recursively) then they should ensure they are treated uniquely and not as duplicates