Hi Roman, Didn't see this email sooner so I hope you haven't spent two days trawling Maven Central!
Take a look at Brooklyn. One of our artifacts is a WAR file for the web UI. Ultimately it's embedded in the final product of the build, but it does exist as a standalone WAR file so may be useful for your purposes. We spent a lot of effort making sure that LICENSE and NOTICE are correct for every individual artifact we produce, and this particular one does have a lengthy LICENSE thanks to all the embedded binary dependencies. Take a look at: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/brooklyn/brooklyn-jsgui/0.11.0/ Hope this helps. Richard. On 27 May 2017 at 00:39, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:37 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I'll point out that Ranger graduated the incubator with a less than > stellar > > release history. [1] is a good example of such problems > > > > Oozie predates me. > > > > But to answer the original question, no, the requirements shouldn't be > any > > less stringent on WAR files vs other packages, its a closed package that > is > > hard to look at and needs to indicate everything within it. While both > of > > these projects were incubating, they are no longer incubating and you > > should follow up with them directly if you want them to fix their > licensing. > > I do -- but that gets me back to my original question -- what example > can I give them? > > Seriously -- at this point -- I'm about to go to Maven central and > search for org.apache.* > artifacts with war as packaging and see what comes up in terms of > recent releases. > > However, if somebody can spare me this agony -- I'd appreciate it ;-) > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
