https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200768 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #4) > (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #3) > POM files use inheritance to avoid information duplication. pom.xml of > takari-archiver specifies its <parent> as io.takari:takari:15 (see parent > Po: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/io/takari/takari/15/takari-15.pom), which > defines license as "The Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0". Due to POM > inheritance this information is effectively part of takari-archiver POM. Fair enough. Still, this is hard to look through without maven knowledge. I'm fine as long as you just add short comment with a hint in the spec. > > Please provide more info on what grounds you are applying the EPL license to > > this software, possibly after contacting upstream. > > In the past I tried working with the same upstream (Takari/Tesla, it's the > same) - I contacted them more than once and they either refused to include > licensing texts in their repos or not responded at all. They said that > licensing information it POM itself in enough in their opinion. > > I had to add license text to RPM package because it is required by EPL > license. Quoting from the license, "When the Program is made available in > source code form [...] a copy of this Agreement [EPL] must be included with > each copy of the Program", see section 3 of EPL. This case is explicitly > allowed by guidelines linked by you. Fair enough, also this. Still, some kind of reference in the spec would a lot of sense. One idea could be to add a short comment with a link to comment #4 in spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review