-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 254
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
[scarthgap] License issues checking by SPDX License. #1216
Comments
I could change LICENSE = "BSD" to LICENSE = "0BSD" with command in advance.
|
A simple workaround is:
|
The community removed the BSD license in Scarthgap, so this broad license cannot be used in the future The correct solution would be to change the license to concrete names such as "BSD-3-Clause". Not to rename the BSD-3-Clause to BSD... |
As i mentioned in #1208, there are multiple BSD variant used by ROS packages. It's good to have a method to parse and use accurate LICENSEN in superflore process. |
Please see ros-infrastructure/catkin_pkg#296 ros/rosdistro#26601 and ros-infrastructure/superflore#279 I don't work on ROS anymore but it indeed needs to be fixed by ROS component owners and QA check in catkin was supposed to incrementally motivate them to update license when updating the version. |
Hi,
There are many license issues by filtered by SPDX license policy which would be added by scarthgap branch. I modified them manually but, I am not sure it is correct approach.
License issues by SPDX license , for example, one of them :
This error was from
LICENSE = "BSD"
which was not problematic for the previous branch, kirkstone.Can you please let me know whether there is some way to turn checking SPDX license off or not?
My bitbake layer for ros2 and openembedded commit ids are :
BR,
Mark
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: