Re: [QUESTION] do pom files need to have a license header
Thanks everyone for the responses. I have raised an issue to investigate the possibilities about getting a header comment in the pom files we generate. I suspect we will need a change to the sbt build tool or one of its plugins. On 2023/01/30 14:01:28 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > It's a better to have ASF header in all files where it's possible. > However, it's sometime difficult (test static files, web content, ..). > So if you can, it's better Pekko community fixes it. > > Thanks, > Regards > JB > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 6:31 PM PJ Fanning wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > The Apache Pekko builds use the sbt tool for building and this generates > > pom files for us. They do not include any headers (example [1]). > > It seems the norm to add an XML comment with Apache License info (example > > from log4j [2]). > > Does the Pekko team need to fix this or is it just a nicety to have the > > license header in the pom files? If the answer is that we do need to fix > > this, does this also apply to other published files? sbt generates and > > publishes a 'buildinfo' file as part of the maven publish (example [2]). > > > > Regards, > > PJ > > > > > > [1] > > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pekko/pekko-actor_2.13/0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT/pekko-actor_2.13-0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT.pom > > [2] > > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/logging/log4j/log4j-api/2.19.0/log4j-api-2.19.0.pom > > [3] > > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pekko/pekko-actor_2.13/0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT/pekko-actor_2.13-0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT.buildinfo > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [QUESTION] do pom files need to have a license header
Hi, It's a better to have ASF header in all files where it's possible. However, it's sometime difficult (test static files, web content, ..). So if you can, it's better Pekko community fixes it. Thanks, Regards JB On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 6:31 PM PJ Fanning wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > The Apache Pekko builds use the sbt tool for building and this generates pom > files for us. They do not include any headers (example [1]). > It seems the norm to add an XML comment with Apache License info (example > from log4j [2]). > Does the Pekko team need to fix this or is it just a nicety to have the > license header in the pom files? If the answer is that we do need to fix > this, does this also apply to other published files? sbt generates and > publishes a 'buildinfo' file as part of the maven publish (example [2]). > > Regards, > PJ > > > [1] > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pekko/pekko-actor_2.13/0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT/pekko-actor_2.13-0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT.pom > [2] > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/logging/log4j/log4j-api/2.19.0/log4j-api-2.19.0.pom > [3] > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pekko/pekko-actor_2.13/0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT/pekko-actor_2.13-0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT.buildinfo > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [QUESTION] do pom files need to have a license header
Hi, In general, it is best to have ASF headers on all possible files. That way if they become separated from the source bundle, people will know what license it’s under and where it comes from. (Also see [3]) People reviewing releases are less likely to ask if these are 3rd party files. The policy [1] does list some files that don’t require a header but pom files are not in that list. [2] However given the files are autogenerated they would probably not be covered by copyright and not need a header. Kind Regards, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions 3. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-whyheader - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [QUESTION] do pom files need to have a license header
The source archive/tarball includes a LICENSE and NOTICE which specifies the license for that artifact. The individual files' header simply reinforces that. In some release artifacts, individual files have a slightly different license (eg. a third-party MIT-licensed piece of source), which definitely needs to be recorded within those files. IMO, it is just fine for the pom file to not contain a license header, since the entire distribution is licensed as ALv2. Cheers, -g On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 11:31 AM PJ Fanning wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The Apache Pekko builds use the sbt tool for building and this generates > pom files for us. They do not include any headers (example [1]). > It seems the norm to add an XML comment with Apache License info (example > from log4j [2]). > Does the Pekko team need to fix this or is it just a nicety to have the > license header in the pom files? If the answer is that we do need to fix > this, does this also apply to other published files? sbt generates and > publishes a 'buildinfo' file as part of the maven publish (example [2]). > > Regards, > PJ > > > [1] > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pekko/pekko-actor_2.13/0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT/pekko-actor_2.13-0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT.pom > [2] > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/logging/log4j/log4j-api/2.19.0/log4j-api-2.19.0.pom > [3] > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pekko/pekko-actor_2.13/0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT/pekko-actor_2.13-0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT.buildinfo > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
[QUESTION] do pom files need to have a license header
Hi everyone, The Apache Pekko builds use the sbt tool for building and this generates pom files for us. They do not include any headers (example [1]). It seems the norm to add an XML comment with Apache License info (example from log4j [2]). Does the Pekko team need to fix this or is it just a nicety to have the license header in the pom files? If the answer is that we do need to fix this, does this also apply to other published files? sbt generates and publishes a 'buildinfo' file as part of the maven publish (example [2]). Regards, PJ [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pekko/pekko-actor_2.13/0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT/pekko-actor_2.13-0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT.pom [2] https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/logging/log4j/log4j-api/2.19.0/log4j-api-2.19.0.pom [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/pekko/pekko-actor_2.13/0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT/pekko-actor_2.13-0.0.0+26546-767209a8-SNAPSHOT.buildinfo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
