-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
Add LicenseRef support #1148
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
Add LicenseRef support #1148
Changes from all commits
2c3c20e
af5d8a4
ace7e05
4fbdc2c
8d760c9
be61dbe
8942c16
8335fba
c6f176b
bddf4a6
57bbca6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ describe('ScanCodeNewSummarizer basic compatability', () => { | |
| const coordinates = { type: 'pypi', provider: 'pypi' } | ||
| const harvestData = getHarvestData(scancodeVersion, 'pypi-complex-declared-license') | ||
| const result = summarizer.summarize(coordinates, harvestData) | ||
| assert.equal(result.licensed.declared, 'HPND') | ||
| assert.equal(result.licensed.declared, 'LicenseRef-scancode-secret-labs-2011') | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The test originally had a license
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure which is the ultimately correct one but we need this change to surface the ScanCode result.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I want to be sure I am understanding and farther down, I see the first package (transient dependency) has the It would be interesting to understand if that is a correct interpretation of how @qtomlinson any insights into this?
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. In v30 result (line 760-766) shows content.packages[0].declared_license as HPND Reading from content.packages[0].declared_license was the preferred way before deriving from files in v30 scancode results. So using v30 scancode, the license would be HPND.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Pypi also shows "License as [OSI Approved :: Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer (HPND)]"
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just noticed Pillow 9.5 was curated as HPND
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just noticed another case where declared_license_expression (v32) seems to be different from what is declared from the package. Added here for documentation purposes. "cc-by-4.0 AND cc-by-sa-4.0 AND gpl-2.0" in v32 is different from "gpl-2.0-plus AND gpl-2.0" in v30
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Either way, I think all of this cases are bugs/regressions in ScanCode, right? Meaning, our code is behaving as expected here, just producing unexpected/wrong results based on the underlying raw data 🤔 |
||
| } | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.