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