search

doubleopen-project / policy-configuration

Double Open license classification for OSS Review Toolkit (ORT) and other uses.
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
12 stars 5 forks source link

Classifications: Fix some SPDX Expressions #35

Closed pepper-jk closed 9 months ago

pepper-jk commented 1 year ago

Hello DoubleOpen project,

during the ORT community day, a colleague of mine @jens-erdmann mentioned to you that we have been using your license classification as a basis for our ORT config. He said you were intrigued to see the changes and additions we made. So here we go.

This is only the first batch of changes, but I thought we best start with something simple:

Most of these changes were a result of an ORT workshop with @sschuberth.

Kind regards, Jens Keim (JJ) HELLA FOSS Office

mmurto commented 11 months ago

Hi @pepper-jk (and sorry for a late reply)! Thanks for your contribution!

A lot of the wrong (in the SPDX spec sense) license expression originate from us using Fossology as a scanner in one of our analysis workflows. Fossology doesn't fully adhere to the SPDX spec, so the license classification includes some licenses to support us in that workflow.

However, we're currently in the process of sunsetting Fossology in our processes. After that has been done, we no longer need those licenses in the classifications, so we are planning to automatically assess all of the licenses in the list on whether they're spec compliant SPDX or not, and removing the offenders. This take care of some of the issues.

In the meantime, we'd love to merge your contribution if you change the deletions of invalid expressions (such as LicenseRef-gpl-2.0-or-later-with-ada-linking-exception) to rather add the correct one (LicenseRef-gpl-2.0-or-later WITH ada-linking-exception in this case) so that both of them still exist. We'll then get rid of the old one when we have sunset the old process.

Thanks again!

pepper-jk commented 11 months ago

In the meantime, we'd love to merge your contribution if you change the deletions of invalid expressions (such as LicenseRef-gpl-2.0-or-later-with-ada-linking-exception) to rather add the correct one (LicenseRef-gpl-2.0-or-later WITH ada-linking-exception in this case) so that both of them still exist. We'll then get rid of the old one when we have sunset the old process.

So we are only speaking of the changes in dbb24443ec434f6451613600920ce3df525bdc99? In that case, I would be glad to remove that commit from this PR and revisit your requested changes in a separate PR.

Since dbb24443ec434f6451613600920ce3df525bdc99 was only a search and replace to fix the WITH syntax, it in and of itself was not a 100% fix for the SPDX ids. The plan was to submit additional changes later that also fix more issues with these SPDX ids, such as LicenseRef- prefixes for GPL licenses. I now think it best to submit these changes together, especially now, if we add new ids instead of fixing old ones.

Are the other changes in this PR to your liking? Such as Classifications: Remove deprecated + SPDX ids and Classifications: Remove duplicate license ids?

pepper-jk commented 11 months ago

As suggested last week, I removed dbb24443ec434f6451613600920ce3df525bdc99 from the PR. Please let me know if this change is sufficient for you.

If there are no other remarks, this PR would be ready to go, once https://github.com/doubleopen-project/policy-configuration/pull/49 is resolved.

sschuberth commented 9 months ago

@pepper-jk could you please

pepper-jk commented 9 months ago

I will on Thursday. Did not end up having time for it today. Thanks for the feedback.

On November 28, 2023 3:33:34 PM GMT+01:00, Sebastian Schuberth @.***> wrote:

@pepper-jk could you please

  • rebase this again to resolve conflicts,
  • add your signoff to the few commits in the PR that lack it,
  • mark this as ready for review?

-- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/doubleopen-project/policy-configuration/pull/35#issuecomment-1829962468 You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Message ID: @.***>

sschuberth commented 9 months ago

I will on Thursday.

Thanks for the force-push, though GitHub still says that "This branch has conflicts that must be resolved".

pepper-jk commented 9 months ago

I will on Thursday.

Thanks for the force-push, though GitHub still says that "This branch has conflicts that must be resolved".

Yeah, I was not done yet.

pepper-jk commented 9 months ago

Looks like I introduced some redundant license IDs while rebasing onto the sorted license list. I will take a look and fix it.

pepper-jk commented 9 months ago

Now it should be done.

willebra commented 9 months ago

I reviewed the changes initially, and did not find anything problematic. However, requesting @Toniprni to do a second review due to the large amount of changes.