search

sugarlabs / browse-activity

Sugar activity to browse the internet; WebKit on GTK on Sugar Toolkit
GNU General Public License v2.0
8 stars 44 forks source link

Invalid SPDX license expression in activity.info #133

Open sidt4 opened 5 months ago

sidt4 commented 5 months ago

https://github.com/sugarlabs/browse-activity/blob/master/activity/activity.info contains the following license.

license = GPLv2+;LGPLv2+;GPLv3+

which is not valid SPDX license expression. Hence it's reported as non-foss app in GNOME Software.

Refer https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/-/issues/2540

chimosky commented 5 months ago

@quozl can you remember why we added GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ here?

quozl commented 5 months ago

e5e30051413ec565d10bc13b9019d34a8bdb7eac changed the metadata.

It was July 2018. Closed pull requests have https://github.com/sugarlabs/browse-activity/pull/82 for that date.

sudo apt install licensecheck
licensecheck . | grep -v UNKNOWN

./browser.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./collabwrapper.py: GNU General Public License v3.0 or later     <----
./downloadmanager.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./edittoolbar.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./filepicker.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./globalhistory.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./linkbutton.py: GNU Library General Public License v2 or later     <----
./model.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./palettes.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./pdfviewer.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./places.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./progresstoolbutton.py: GNU General Public License v3.0 or later     <----
./setup.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./viewtoolbar.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./webactivity.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./webtoolbar.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
./widgets.py: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later

So an answer as to why we added that is because we wanted the code.

chimosky commented 5 months ago

So an answer as to why we added that is because we wanted the code.

Yeah I know this, I was looking for the PR link. Thanks for adding that.

Most of the license seems to be GPLv2+, so updating it to GPLv3+ can work, can we unify the licenses to just that? I'm wondering why linkbutton.py has GNU LGPLv2+.

quozl commented 4 months ago

749e3e69e4f49249c4d89a157f345b014 added it, and at the time there were four other source files LGPL. GPLv3+ is slightly more restrictive. I'd want to ask the other authors to consent before that kind of change. I'm still working for OLPC, so I have the authority to relicense linkbutton.py if necessary, but I'm afraid I can't see why it is necessary. It would seem the problem is with the SPDX license expression.

chimosky commented 4 months ago

I also don't see why changing the license is necessary, we should be able to live with this on the GNOME side.