-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 551
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
unexpected LicenseRefs #3974
Comments
These two are not from ScanCode, as we always use a "LicenseRef-scancode" prefix, but these are aliases found in the wild that we listed here: https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/proprietary-license.html but we should not report these as SPDX licenses on our side. Else this is a bug.
Do know which file they were detected in exactly? This one is weird:
These are "generic" licenses with "is_generic" flag set to true:
For instance, say we have these fictitious license rules:
With the license detection recombination, a. followed by b. will be reported only as This means that 1. you should use the |
Thanks for all that info. I am including a single package-version for each. Not in scancode db
In scancode db
|
FYI... we had data from before the update. I did an analysis on the pre-2.0 data. It already includes LicenseRefs. These are the stats from that analysis.
List of LicenseRefs in pre-v2.0 data sorted by the number of packages (ignoring versions) that they appear in: |
@elrayle Thanks! re:
Do you mind to attach a text file? (Tesseract is not too shabby at reading PNGs, but I would prefer the raw text) Also do you have one example where each of these show up? Tesseract's OCR output:
|
|
@dangoor Found this related issue from 2022. |
This is the results comparing the OLD and the NEW. I can look at adding coordinates when I get a chance.
|
@pombredanne If there are questions about licenses in ScanCode LicenseDB, is there a preferred place for the questions to be asked? I am writing a blob post announcing the support of LicenseRefs and want to include a statement like...
|
@elrayle re:
Awesome 🙇 ... Please also link it here when done so we can relay and amplify! but I would say instead:
The license DB is entirely generated from ScanCode toolkit licenses for now, so here is the place to report and discuss these issues. At some point of time, we could either extract the license DB in its own repo or publish it also as it its solo package, but I am not sure of the benefits? @AyanSinhaMahapatra @DennisClark ping, what do you think? |
quick side note: some (or many?) of these licenseref exists in the wild. See for instance emilk/egui#5361 |
ClearlyDefined added support for LicenseRefs. Scancode is the only source at the moment that produces LicenseRefs that are used. I'm seeing a few results that are unexpected. Can you provide information on the following LicenseRefs? (selected out a few, there may be others that are similar)
Not in the list of scancode-licensedb...
In the list of scancode-licensedb, but appear to be catch alls...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: