Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix missing license.txt files #255

Closed
rzo1 opened this issue Oct 31, 2023 · 8 comments
Closed

Fix missing license.txt files #255

rzo1 opened this issue Oct 31, 2023 · 8 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@rzo1
Copy link
Contributor

rzo1 commented Oct 31, 2023

The check-license.txt profile is failing due to LICENCE vs LICENSE ambiquity. In some modules the LICENSE is missing at all.

@rzo1 rzo1 added this to the 2.0.0 milestone Oct 31, 2023
@rzo1 rzo1 self-assigned this Oct 31, 2023
rzo1 added a commit to rzo1/dkpro-jwpl that referenced this issue Oct 31, 2023
@reckart
Copy link
Member

reckart commented Oct 31, 2023

Any idea why we don't use the maven-rat-plugin exclusively?

@rzo1
Copy link
Contributor Author

rzo1 commented Oct 31, 2023

No idea. The profile check-license.txt is inherited from the dkpro-parent (and was failing - I assumed it might be active during a release procedere, so I wanted to fix it)

@reckart
Copy link
Member

reckart commented Oct 31, 2023

ok, I'll have a look where this comes from. in other projects, we needed to mix rat and the license checker plugin because of a mix of GPL and ASL code (in DKPro Core) - but this should I think not apply to JWPL.

@rzo1
Copy link
Contributor Author

rzo1 commented Oct 31, 2023

There are some classes in JWPL, which are not ASLv2 and have a rather individual license (for example: ListFilter)

@reckart
Copy link
Member

reckart commented Oct 31, 2023

If they are ASL-compatible, they should either be recognized by rat or can be excluded from the check and manually recorded in LICENSE / NOTICE files. If they are not compatible, they should probably be removed/replaced.

@rzo1
Copy link
Contributor Author

rzo1 commented Oct 31, 2023

They are already properly recorded in the related files and should be compatible :-)

@reckart
Copy link
Member

reckart commented Oct 31, 2023

Probably, but me-from-ages-ago might also have missed them while vetting...

@rzo1
Copy link
Contributor Author

rzo1 commented Oct 31, 2023

The rat checks are active by default, so other files should be covered as well. I will do an additional check if there are classes not covered by notice files.

@rzo1 rzo1 closed this as completed Oct 31, 2023
rzo1 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 31, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants