potiuk commented on pull request #12416: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/12416#issuecomment-729473392
> CI seems like it's failing because of lack of license header - I was poking around and it seems like the jinja templates have headers in them, but the generated .md files here do not. Should this new ADDITIONAL_INFO.md comply with the demands of the linter, or should it match with the generated ones? It should contain the licence. The licence comment gets removed when the content is read: https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/4873d9759dfdec1dd3663074f9e64ad69fa881cc/dev/provider_packages/prepare_provider_packages.py#L1074 And you can see other ADDITIONAL_INFO.md files we have (this is the kubernetes one): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/airflow/master/airflow/providers/cncf/kubernetes/ADDITIONAL_INFO.md The rule of thumb is that if a file is generated from other sources, even if it is committed, it does not have to have a licence. It's not per-se documented in ASF rules but this the information that we get when we run the official RAT tool from Apache: `Generated files do not require license headers` ``` ***************************************************** Summary ------- Generated at: 2020-11-18T07:51:01+01:00 Notes: 0 Binaries: 0 Archives: 0 Standards: 990 Apache Licensed: 990 Generated Documents: 0 JavaDocs are generated, thus a license header is optional. Generated files do not require license headers. 0 Unknown Licenses ``` ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
