Closed maxice8 closed 6 years ago
MIT and JSON. The bane of my existence. Annoyingly on the failing case it is so close to being correct as well with the generic method of checking.
{JSON 0.928547293335935} {MIT 0.9224754899801437}
Going to add in a special case specifically for this situation. I believe that's how other tools handle this situation anyway. Since the licenses shouldn't change rather there will be a new one rather than the old one being updated this isn't the worst option in the world.
https://github.com/boyter/lc/pull/37
Waiting for CI to process, and if all good will be merged in. Hope you don't mind me using the emails in the above example as test cases. If you do let me know and ill change them.
Not sure if you are building from source, but if you grab the latest and install it the results should be correct for your case now. Ill package it up into an official release now.
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:28:06PM +0000, Ben Boyter wrote:
Not sure if you are building from source, but if you grab the latest and install it the results should be correct for your case now. Ill package it up into an official release now.
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.*
Thanks, i'm getting the binary package from Void Linux, i am pushing to using SPDX titles for our license= keys in the package templates. we have a few thousand packages that wrongly indicate BSD
so i'm using lc to correctly identify the license.
No problem ill push it out now.
After looking at the above a little more closely they look more like MIT-feh
than MIT
which is what they are being picked up as in the application with the new tweaks.
Going to leave it as MIT-feh as one of the signals used to determine the difference is that MIT starts with The MIT License
and MIT-feh does not.
with 2 copyright lines
with 1 copyright line
LICENSE file