-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 588
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
G10's license identified as fsf-unlimited-no-warranty #3934
Comments
The rule that is matched is https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/develop/src/licensedcode/data/rules/fsf-unlimited-no-warranty_5.RULE IMHO, the only different that would be questionable would be "as a special exception" From a meaning point of view, I do not think that the addition of "as a special exception" changes anything there. I suggest we can resolve this in any of these ways:
The collected text matched by ScanCode is the correct text in all cases. BTW, scarfer is cool! |
@DennisClark is this a new license, or just a variant on the same text? I am fine either way. BTW, I was the one who added this detection rule way back https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/9dc597bcb380ba9e95da3038b839ba829794d57d/src/licensedcode/data/rules/fsf-mit_5.RULE |
Providing documentation to the user
... on the other hand, if we were to create a new license identifier for every change in a word or even letter, than we would have "quite a few licenses". From a license compatibility point of view
|
ok, I am in favor of having a new license for now.
That's not the case. Growth of the number of licenses is not too bad so far. We have ~ 2K and I think there are probably no more than ~ 3K out there :) |
There is some very odd wording in the g10-permissive but I guess we should just accept it. The text states "as a special exception" -- exception to what? The rest of it is worded like a typical short permissive license. But we're not going to correct that, and I want to clarify that this is a standalone license, not an exception to some other license. License: g10-permissive |
I found the website of the g10-permissive owner "g10 Code GmbH" : |
@AyanSinhaMahapatra please add this license: id: g10-permissive (also the name and short name) text: This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but notes: |
The "exception" statement probably comes from the autoconf exception (https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/autoconf-exception-2.0.html). g10 is the company behind GPG (GNU Privacy Guard). I will check the GPG code for similar statements (i.e the discussed license text). |
GPG
[1] [2]
[3] Output from the last command
|
Moving this to ScanCode TK |
The g10-permissive license has been added with this commit: In this PR: We still have an issue is that this text:
... is still matched to this "legacy" rule:
And this rule should be deprecated and replaced with a new identical rule pointing to the g10 license |
Background
On https://ubuntu.com/legal/open-source-licences?release=xenial you will find dbus, and if looking closer we can see
Looking (even) closer at the "g10-permissive" license on https://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/d/dbus/dbus_1.10.6-1ubuntu3.6/copyright we can see the license referred to as "g10-permissive":
Problem
Scancode (32.0.8) identifies the above license as https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/fsf-unlimited-no-warranty.html.
However, these licenses (FSF and G10) are not (exactly) the same:
The FSF license
The G10 license
Reproducing the bug
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: