-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 574
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
Many duplicates in SPDX files #2905
Comments
@vargenau Thank you for the report! You wrote:
I assume here (may be incorrectly) that when you say " we have multiple times the same code" you mean that the "Se details ... " comment is showing up twice? It is always best to run with |
I ran a single scan on https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tern-tools/tern/cdc6732eda7de1e5e1f9e1298a6db2e073ec48fc/LICENSE.txt Of note:
NB: If you are interested in container scans, check out also the companion server project http://scancode.io/
|
wrt. to reuse: https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/tree/master/src/reuse/resources contains long lists of SPDX licenses that are real license mentions but false positives since this is a tool that is license-related. In general, note that ScanCode is not optimized to scan tools that are themselves license detection tools, so you can expect a lot of matches in these cases. |
Hi Philippe, Sorry if I was not clear. In the tern.spdx SPDX file, you have the following:
(see bigger extract in the initial report) Why do we have the same information 3 times for the same file? |
Hi Philippe, As you recommended, I have used the I now get:
So we have the same LicenseID with a different ExtractedText. This seems illegal for me. The SPDX spec says: What do you think? |
This "scancode" as used in the |
unknown-license-reference is a special case where ScanCode detects elements of what may be a license. The LicenseID values for unknown-license detections are generated for consistency in the output data - not for use in an SPDX document. There is major rework pending on the handling of unknown-license-reference - see also #2878 |
@vargenau I am revisiting this as we start some major work on false positive:
@rnjudge see https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tern-tools/tern/cdc6732eda7de1e5e1f9e1298a6db2e073ec48fc/LICENSE.txt which is your damaged and not-really-standard license text and notice. The main issue is mojibake |
@pombredanne that file comes directly from GitHub when you choose a license for the project. Do you have a suggestion for a more parse-able/standard license text we can use to communicate BSD-2? Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I wasn't aware. Happy to update! |
@rnjudge you wrote:
It may have bee this way, but this seems to be no longer the case: Any BSD text that scancode detects works! (I will be adding yours as a new rule FWIW) .... using https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/bsd-simplified.html will surely work perfectly . This https://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php and this too https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause will be fine. |
It was brought to our attention[1] that the Tern license file was not using a standard BSD-2 license text and notice which was making it difficult for compliance tooling to parse. This commit updates the license file to use the standard text for the BSD 2-Clause license[2] [1] aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit#2905 (comment) [2] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause Signed-off-by: Rose Judge <[email protected]>
Thanks @pombredanne. The license file in Tern was created 5 years ago so it's good you're bringing this up. I opened a PR to fix this in Tern. Could you have a look? |
It was brought to our attention[1] that the Tern license file was not using a standard BSD-2 license text and notice which was making it difficult for compliance tooling to parse. This commit updates the license file to use the standard text for the BSD 2-Clause license[2]. [1] aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit#2905 (comment) [2] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause Signed-off-by: Rose Judge <[email protected]>
It was brought to our attention[1] that the Tern license file was not using a standard BSD-2 license text and notice which was making it difficult for compliance tooling to parse. This commit updates the license file to use the standard text for the BSD 2-Clause license[2]. [1] aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit#2905 (comment) [2] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause Signed-off-by: Rose Judge <[email protected]>
In this issue, we have in fact two different issues reported in:
|
Description
In the SPDX code, we have multiple times the same code, for example:
or
I do not know if it is really a bug, but is is at least confusing.
reuse.spdx.txt
tern.spdx.txt
How To Reproduce
where the code comes from GitHub:
System configuration
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: