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 <fannin...@apache.org> 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 > >
