Closed eric-seppanen closed 4 months ago
I found a string that works: LGPL-2.1-or-later WITH GCC-exception-2.0
-> LGPL-2.1 WITH GCC-exception-2.0
, though I'm not sure if I was supposed to add +
to reflect the -or-later
part.
I'm still puzzled why the behavior changed when I added version = 2
.
This is documented. As are the annoyances with GPLish licenses.
I have read that documentation, and I'm afraid I don't understand which part of the version = 2
changes trigger different behavior with this license. Can you clarify?
Copyleft licenses are warn by default before setting version = 2
Thanks for the clarification. I was going back through my output when I figured out part of my problem: I was confused because license warn
ings don't look the same as license deny
errors.
My naive expectation is that a license warning and a license error would look similar, but one would fail the check and the other wouldn't.
A license warning says warning[accepted]: license requirements satisfied
which I found (and still find) kind of misleading. It seems to be asserting something that's not true! The license requirements were not satisfied.
That was one of the issues that this deprecation is addressing.
Describe the bug
I upgraded my
deny.toml
to useversion = 2
in the[licenses]
section.After making that change, a new failure appears, due to the license string
"LGPL-2.1-or-later WITH GCC-exception-2.0"
in thesystemd
crate:I have tried allowing
LGPL-2.1
, and that fails with the same message. I also triedLGPL-2.1-or-later WITH GCC-exception-2.0
,LGPL-2.1-or-later
,LGPL-2.1+
, but those appear to be the wrong syntax.I have read through #606 and #611, and I wasn't able to figure out why this behavior changed.
To reproduce
A small project that shows the problem:
deny.toml
Cargo.toml
cargo-deny version
cargo-deny 0.14.16
What OS were you running cargo-deny on?
Linux
Additional context
No response