[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13878671#comment-13878671
]
Richard Eckart de Castilho commented on UIMA-3575:
--------------------------------------------------
I do not think that we will add any files to already released artifacts. We
will consider doing that for future versions. I updated the fields of this
issue accordingly. We have just released uimaj 2.5.0, so we may not do a 2.5.1
until some time from now. The uimaj 2.3.1 sources may not even build with
current versions of the parent-pom.
Please note that we provide source and binary releases of our artifacts that
could be used as a basis for packaging:
* http://ftp.unicamp.br/pub/apache//uima//uimaj-2.5.0/uimaj-2.5.0-bin.zip
*
http://ftp.unicamp.br/pub/apache//uima//uimaj-2.5.0/uimaj-2.5.0-source-release.zip
* http://ftp.unicamp.br/pub/apache//uima///uima-addons-2.3.1-bin.zip
* http://ftp.unicamp.br/pub/apache//uima///uima-addons-2.3.1-source-release.zip
The license header for the pom.xml file is contained in the file itself.
As not to delay your packaging of UIMA until we have fixed our side (which - if
we do it - may take quite some time to percolate through all the releases), I
suggest you follow the recommendation provided by the Fedora guidelines and
include a copy of the Apache License 2.0 as the LICENSE file.
{quote}
*Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as
part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance.* It is
worth noting that this may place some additional risk on the packager, however,
Fedora believes that this risk is minimized by the fact that if the upstream
disagrees with what we have distributed as the full license text, they can
easily remedy this by making full license text available in the source code.
Packagers who choose to do this should ensure that they have exhausted all
attempts to work with upstream to include the license text as part of the
source code, or at least, to confirm the full license text explicitly with the
upstream, as this minimizes the risk on the packager. Packagers should also
take copies of license texts from reliable and canonical sources (such as the
Fedora Software Licenses page, the FSF licenses page, or the OSI license list),
whenever possible.
{quote}
However, I am still slightly puzzled as to where exactly this particular
pom.xml file would end up in your packaging. I also checked the parent file of
our parent-pom, which is the Apache-wide parent-pom
(https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/pom/tags/apache-13). I do not see any
LICENSE file there either. I also do not know if/where there is a tgz/zip
archive source release of this artifact ([~schor], do you know that?).
In my opinion, our parent-pom, as well as the Apache-wide parent-pom are pure
build artifacts. If you track all our dependencies transitively, you'll most
likely find more of these. While these artifacts (and many other artifacts) are
involved in the Maven build, imho they should not become part of any release -
they are not required at runtime. I do not know why our UIMA parent-pom file is
part of the uimaj-addons 2.3.1 source release. Given that it is not part of the
uimaj release, I believe it should be dropped from the next uimaj-addons source
release as well.
> parent-pom don't include the license file
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: UIMA-3575
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-3575
> Project: UIMA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Build, Packaging and Test
> Affects Versions: parent-pom-8
> Environment: Fedora all
> Reporter: gil cattaneo
> Fix For: parent-pom-9
>
>
> Not available LICENSE file in source directory structure
> Please. Added license and copyright notice.
> the fedora pakaging guideline is very strictly precise about this problem
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> thanks
> regards
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
