Skip to content
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

Docs do not mention third_party requirements for a license #642

Closed
endobson opened this issue Nov 23, 2015 · 9 comments
Closed

Docs do not mention third_party requirements for a license #642

endobson opened this issue Nov 23, 2015 · 9 comments
Assignees
Labels
P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: documentation (cleanup)

Comments

@endobson
Copy link
Contributor

I added a directory in my toplevel called third_party, and when building a rule within it I got an error:

ERROR: /Users/endobson/tmp/grpc-bazel/third_party/openssl/BUILD:78:1: third-party rule '//third_party/openssl:libssl-deb' lacks a license declaration with one of the following types: notice, reciprocal, permissive, restricted, unencumbered, by_exception_only.

Searching for third_party in the bazel docs does not turn up anything about this restriction: http://bazel.io/search.html?q=third_party

@kchodorow
Copy link
Contributor

To work around this, you can add a licenses(["notice"]) line to your BUILD files in the third_party directory.

@kamalmarhubi
Copy link
Contributor

Is this restriction going to be relaxed? It seems a bit inconsistent to enforce this for third_party but not for things like new_http_archive.

@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

Yes AFAICT it should be relaxed and replaced by the constraint mechanism.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, 8:52 PM Kamal Marhubi notifications@github.com
wrote:

Is this restriction going to be relaxed? It seems a bit inconsistent to
enforce this for third_party but not for things like new_http_archive.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#642 (comment).

@kchodorow kchodorow added the P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) label Dec 2, 2015
@trainman419
Copy link

+1. I ran into this today and was not able to find any documentation about which licenses are available or what the license() command does.

@davidzchen
Copy link
Member

Here is the documentation on licenses: http://bazel.io/docs/be/functions.html#licenses. I agree that the documentation should be fleshed out a bit more since it doesn't really mention which license-type strings are available.

@kchodorow
Copy link
Contributor

I added some documentation here: https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/blob/master/src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/packages/PackageFactory.java#L722-L741, which I incorrectly thought would be included in the generated docs. We should move it somewhere else so it will show up in the documentation.

@kchodorow
Copy link
Contributor

Eventually... it needs to be moved to a different file.

@trainman419
Copy link

The existing documentation describes what, but not why.

From some digging, it appears that licenses somehow interacts with the --check_licenses command-line flag. Is there any documentation describing this flag? It would be good if the documentation for licenses linked to that documentation.

@kchodorow kchodorow assigned kchodorow and unassigned gregestren Jun 20, 2016
bazel-io pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2019
#7444

The detailed description of license types was written for
#642, which was
created only because users were forced to set these values.
This is no longer true.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 243998042
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: documentation (cleanup)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants
@kchodorow @kamalmarhubi @trainman419 @endobson @damienmg @gregestren @davidzchen and others