[opensuse-packaging] What is supposed to be in the License: field
Now that an automatic license check is done on packages submitted to factory there is one more twist to accepting and forwarding to openSUSE:Factory. One particular package from multimedia:libs libkate had "|BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License" in the license field and was rejected for having "||Other uncritical OpenSource License" so I removed it ran "licensecheck --verbose -r libkate-0.3.8" and only saw this (apart from a GNU header in ltmain.sh) : Use, distribution and reproduction of this library is governed by a BSD style source license included with this source in the file 'COPYING'. Please read these terms before distributing. */ so I left ||BSD3c. This has been declined as well and it feels like my community unpaid workload has increased ten fold. I'm not sure that I will accept anymore third party submissions to multimedia:libs or apps as there is no clear indication why libkate was declined the second time and I see that at least another package has a license problem which I can't fix without clear guidelines on what is supposed to be in the license field. Looking at another package submitted, it has "License: GNU General Public License version 2 or later (GPL v2 or later)" in the spec file. If I had worked on this package I would have altered it to "||License: GPLv2+" but now I'm not even sure about that. Do I give up or is the information that "License digger" uses publicly available? Dave P | -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Apr 28, 11 22:26:54 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Now that an automatic license check is done on packages submitted to factory there is one more twist to accepting and forwarding to openSUSE:Factory. One particular package from multimedia:libs libkate had "|BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License" in the license field and was rejected for having "||Other uncritical OpenSource License" so I removed it ran
BSD3c is the correct license.
"licensecheck --verbose -r libkate-0.3.8" and only saw this (apart from a GNU header in ltmain.sh) : Use, distribution and reproduction of this library is governed by a BSD style source license included with this source in the file 'COPYING'. Please read these terms before distributing. */ so I left ||BSD3c.
Good. So this licensecheck is correct. (Actually, I did not know such a thing exists. What do I need to install to get it?)
This has been declined as well and it feels like my community unpaid workload has increased ten fold.
Sorry for that. Please tell me the submit request number, and I'll look into it. Actually, please feel free to file me bug against legal issues, if you believe this auto reject does nonsense. It is quite new, and we are currently trying to infuse sufficient intelligence into it to not annoy our contributors. Sometimes it misbehaves. Mostly my fault then. Please accept my apologies.
anymore third party submissions to multimedia:libs or apps as there is no clear indication why libkate was declined the second time and I see that at least another package has a license problem which I can't fix without clear guidelines on what is supposed to be in the license field.
Auto review should only be active for Factory submissions. If it reviews submissions to multimedia:libs, we'll have to ask Adrian why that is the case.
Looking at another package submitted, it has "License: GNU General Public License version 2 or later (GPL v2 or later)" in the spec file. If I had worked on this package I would have altered it to "||License: GPLv2+" but now I'm not even sure about that.
GPLv2+ is fine. That is the name most distros currently use. The syntax check only has a few strings blacklisted currently. The pattern is check\(|contact author|shareware|other uncritical|no license agreement
Do I give up or is the information that "License digger" uses publicly available?
There is a license test interface at license.opensuse.org, it is not fully functional yet, as it e.g. does not know this blacklist. It should be updated within the next days, then we'll also provide some documentation about this black magic. sorry, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 04/29/2011 12:52 AM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Apr 28, 11 22:26:54 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Now that an automatic license check is done on packages submitted to factory there is one more twist to accepting and forwarding to openSUSE:Factory. One particular package from multimedia:libs libkate had "|BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License" in the license field and was rejected for having "||Other uncritical OpenSource License" so I removed it ran
BSD3c is the correct license.
"licensecheck --verbose -r libkate-0.3.8" and only saw this (apart from a GNU header in ltmain.sh) : Use, distribution and reproduction of this library is governed by a BSD style source license included with this source in the file 'COPYING'. Please read these terms before distributing. */ so I left ||BSD3c.
Good. So this licensecheck is correct. (Actually, I did not know such a thing exists. What do I need to install to get it?)
rpm -qi rpmdevtools Name : rpmdevtools Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 8.0 Vendor: obs://build.opensuse.org/devel:tools Release : 1.2 Build Date: Mon 04 Apr 2011 08:46:49 PM SAST Install Date: Tue 19 Apr 2011 03:26:37 PM SAST Build Host: build16 Group : Development/Tools/Other Source RPM: rpmdevtools-8.0-1.2.src.rpm Size : 226485 License: GPL Signature : DSA/SHA1, Mon 04 Apr 2011 08:47:37 PM SAST, Key ID 868ea2eb32567f38 URL : http://fedoraproject.org/ Summary : RPM Development Tools Description : This package contains scripts and (X)Emacs support files to aid in development of RPM packages. rpmdev-setuptree Create RPM build tree within user's home directory rpmdev-diff Diff contents of two archives rpmdev-newspec Creates new .spec from template rpmdev-rmdevelrpms Find (and optionally remove) "development" RPMs rpmdev-checksig Check package signatures using alternate RPM keyring rpminfo Print information about executables and libraries rpmdev-md5 Display the md5sum of all files in an RPM rpmdev-vercmp RPM version comparison checker spectool Expand and download sources and patches in specfiles rpmdev-wipetree Erase all files within dirs created by rpmdev-setuptree rpmdev-extract Extract various archives, "tar xvf" style ...and many more. Distribution: devel:tools / openSUSE_11.4>
This has been declined as well and it feels like my community unpaid workload has increased ten fold.
Sorry for that. Please tell me the submit request number, and I'll look into it. Actually, please feel free to file me bug against legal issues, if you believe this auto reject does nonsense. It is quite new, and we are currently trying to infuse sufficient intelligence into it to not annoy our contributors. Sometimes it misbehaves. Mostly my fault then. Please accept my apologies.
I suspect that it's due to the comment I put before the license field that upset the tool. "# "Other uncritical OpenSource License" is no longer allowed in the License field." I put comments like this in the spec file to help me remember the rule. In the interests of bug trouble shooting I'll make a space between the comment and "License", the output of licensedigger still contained a reference to "Other uncritical OpenSource License" The request was sr#68588 and the new one with the extra 0x0D between the comment and the license field is sr#68822. If this passes then maybe the tool used to check the license has a problem recognizing "#".
anymore third party submissions to multimedia:libs or apps as there is no clear indication why libkate was declined the second time and I see that at least another package has a license problem which I can't fix without clear guidelines on what is supposed to be in the license field.
Auto review should only be active for Factory submissions. If it reviews submissions to multimedia:libs, we'll have to ask Adrian why that is the case.
This is a case where the submitter is adding 32 bit libraries to packages in multimedia:libs for use by gstreamer and is quite meticulous fixing other errors in the spec file and if only baselibs.conf has been added and the builds succeed I forward the package to factory when I accept it. This person has submitted around 40 packages over the past week and I've handled most of them, I have at least one more license reject to handle and a few declined because a certain package hasn't made factory, it would have been nice if the request had been put on hold, much like slv2 which was submitted end of Jan. this year and is still being tossed around like a hot potato for a reason still unknown to me. At the same time as this, I'm fixing the openCOLLADA library package with a switch to cmake and preparing the blender-2.57b release package. I still have lillypond my other difficult package, which is just about to release, to contend with and a pulse audio bug which has hit my system.
Looking at another package submitted, it has "License: GNU General Public License version 2 or later (GPL v2 or later)" in the spec file. If I had worked on this package I would have altered it to "||License: GPLv2+" but now I'm not even sure about that.
GPLv2+ is fine. That is the name most distros currently use. The syntax check only has a few strings blacklisted currently. The pattern is check\(|contact author|shareware|other uncritical|no license agreement
Do I give up or is the information that "License digger" uses publicly available?
There is a license test interface at license.opensuse.org, it is not fully functional yet, as it e.g. does not know this blacklist. It should be updated within the next days, then we'll also provide some documentation about this black magic.
sorry, JW-
Not your fault, excuse my moaning, the license check is still new but will eventually result in easier package maintenance. I see packages that don't follow rules everyday but I don't have the time to fix so I have to resist the temptation to touch them. I've also joined Packman and am finding time for that as well. Thanks. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Apr 29, 11 14:32:55 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Good. So this licensecheck is correct. (Actually, I did not know such a thing exists. What do I need to install to get it?)
rpm -qi rpmdevtools
Ah, cool. I meanwhile found another copy in openSUSE:11.4 deb The default_check_regex differs, but not much.
Please tell me the submit request number, and I'll look into it. I suspect that it's due to the comment I put before the license field that upset the tool. "# "Other uncritical OpenSource License" is no longer allowed in the License field." No, comments do not make any difference.
The request was sr#68588 and the new one with the extra 0x0D between the comment and the license field is sr#68822. Thanks for the numbers.
$ osc cat multimedia:libs libkate libkate.spec | grep License: License: BSD3c License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License You apparenly have a number of subpackages there, that still use that language.
... like slv2 which was submitted end of Jan. this year and is still being tossed around like a hot potato for a reason still unknown to me. ...
No idea. I have no auto-rejects logged for slv2.
... I'm fixing the openCOLLADA library package with a switch to cmake and preparing the blender-2.57b release package. I still have lillypond my other difficult package, which is just about to release, to contend with and a pulse audio bug which has hit my system.
home:plater:lilypond/lilypond home:plater:blender/openCOLLADA -> would get legal auto approve for Factory as they currently are.
Not your fault, excuse my moaning, the license check is still new but will eventually result in easier package maintenance. I see packages that don't follow rules everyday but I don't have the time to fix so I have to resist the temptation to touch them.
I'd like to add the legal auto logic to rpmlint as warnings, so that we can see them earlier. How about that? cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 04/29/2011 03:46 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Apr 29, 11 14:32:55 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Good. So this licensecheck is correct. (Actually, I did not know such a thing exists. What do I need to install to get it?)
rpm -qi rpmdevtools
Ah, cool. I meanwhile found another copy in openSUSE:11.4 deb The default_check_regex differs, but not much.
Please tell me the submit request number, and I'll look into it. I suspect that it's due to the comment I put before the license field that upset the tool. "# "Other uncritical OpenSource License" is no longer allowed in the License field." No, comments do not make any difference.
The request was sr#68588 and the new one with the extra 0x0D between the comment and the license field is sr#68822. Thanks for the numbers.
$ osc cat multimedia:libs libkate libkate.spec | grep License: License: BSD3c License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
You apparenly have a number of subpackages there, that still use that language.
I'm embarrassed to say the least, I should remove subpackage license fields if they use the same license?
... like slv2 which was submitted end of Jan. this year and is still being tossed around like a hot potato for a reason still unknown to me. ...
No idea. I have no auto-rejects logged for slv2.
I actually get the impression that someone has jumped to a conclusion about me and it's a personal issue.
... I'm fixing the openCOLLADA library package with a switch to cmake and preparing the blender-2.57b release package. I still have lillypond my other difficult package, which is just about to release, to contend with and a pulse audio bug which has hit my system.
home:plater:lilypond/lilypond home:plater:blender/openCOLLADA = MIT very easy. -> would get legal auto approve for Factory as they currently are.
home:plater:blender/openCOLLADA = MIT very easy but the tarball contains among others lib3ds but it's not used, will be interesting to see how it fares. Just busy finishing it. Lilypond has changed to GPLv3+
Not your fault, excuse my moaning, the license check is still new but will eventually result in easier package maintenance. I see packages that don't follow rules everyday but I don't have the time to fix so I have to resist the temptation to touch them.
I'd like to add the legal auto logic to rpmlint as warnings, so that we can see them earlier. How about that?
cheers, JW-
That would be a big plus, rpmlint could also warn about consistency in the license string suggesting "GPLv2+" instead of the more verbose strings. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (2)
-
Dave Plater -
Juergen Weigert