-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 579
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
Incorrect RPM license detected #2767
Comments
I'd like to work on this |
@adii21-Ux great! the resolution could include:
or both. The first step would be a small unit test IMHO. |
Ok Got it |
I guess the reason for unknown license expression is we have 10 rules for LGPLv2+ AND GPLv2+ and no rule file for (LGPLv2+ AND GPLv2+) AND another expression so I guess we have to add another rule, I don't see any code changes here, what do you think? |
@adii21-Ux this is an approach... another one may be to craft a list of RPM license symbols and use the packaged.licensing code to parse RPM license tags as a license expression using these symbols(such as |
you can try to go first with a few rules for a start. |
whats the status of this issue? seems like it hasnt been resolved yet |
I am working on it |
BTW here is a mapping of Fedora license ids https://github.com/fedora-modularity/check_modulemd/blob/55555db5796d92311acea65273f7536fd3a9663e/valid_sw_licenses.txt by @bgoncalv ... well not a mapping bu a list. A mapping to normalized licenses would need to be built from this! Valid Software Licenses according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
Another avenue could be https://github.com/org-metaeffekt/metaeffekt-universe ... but I cannot see ids explicitly from Fedora there ... @karsten-klein do you track these specifically ? See also https://github.com/maxhbr/LDBcollector @maxhbr you would not happen to have built a mapping of ScanCode license keys to Fedora license ids by chance? |
I'm not sure if helps, but rpminspect contains a list of supported Licenses in Fedora: https://github.com/rpminspect/rpminspect-data-fedora/blob/master/licenses/fedora.json |
@bgoncalv It will surely help as between the SPDX ids and the text URL for the ones that do not have an SPDX id we should be able to map these alright. We have likely most if not all these licenses somehow already detectable as text and notices, and this would get us the Fedora id and name |
Fedora moved to SPDX id in license tags https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_4 and RHEL10 will have SPDX ids too. |
In http://rpmfind.net/linux/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/os/Packages/g/GConf2-devel-3.2.6-31.fc36.aarch64.rpm we get this and the "unknown" is incorrect:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: