Fix false positive for Apache-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause and add Apache-2.0 … #4126
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. You are missing a DCO signoff, and should start by adding a test. Do not update existing rules with different texts. Create new ones, and check https://aboutcode.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing/writing_good_commit_messages.html
| @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| license_expression: apache-2.0 OR bsd-new | |||
| is_license_notice: yes | |||
| relevance: 99 | |||
| relevance: 100 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do not change this. How can you be 100% sure that LICENSE.BSD contains a bsd-new
| found in {{LICENSE.APACHE}} or {{LICENSE.BSD}}. Both must be present for this rule to apply. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do not change existing rules. Create new ones
| This software is made available under the terms of *either* of the licenses | ||
| found in LICENSE.APACHE2 or LICENSE.MIT. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do not change existing rules. Create new ones
| ignorable_urls: | ||
| - http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT | ||
| - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
| - LICENSE.APACHE2 |
|
@pombredanne sir so shall I create a new rule with the respective changes? |
yes you should create new rule file. |
This reverts commit 2075746.
Signed-off-by: TanayPawar <tanaypawar888@gmail.com>
|
hey @pombredanne , @alok1304 |
…OR MIT rule
Fixes #4088
Tasks
Run tests locally to check for errors.