License Infrastructure Interest Group - Revision history

Mattsm at 19:21, 30 May 2012

2012-05-30T19:21:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 30 May 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:

	===Packages with known LICENSE issues===		===Packages with known LICENSE issues===

			* none

	===Naming===		===Naming===

Eflanagan at 01:39, 3 December 2011

2011-12-03T01:39:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 3 December 2011
Line 939:		Line 939:
	* Add licenses to the image as a conf option		* Add licenses to the image as a conf option
	* Possible (generate spdx license files as part of the manifest). SPDX or not, we need a manifest.		* Possible (generate spdx license files as part of the manifest). SPDX or not, we need a manifest.
			* We have some problematic licenses. [[License Audit]]


	==License v2 Plan==		==License v2 Plan==

PaulEggleton: Undo revision 3440 by Radabaugh (talk)

2011-11-18T14:14:06Z

Undo revision 3440 by Radabaugh (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:14, 18 November 2011
Line 10:		Line 10:

	* http://spdx.org/licenses/ for more info on common-license text and the Identifier field.		* http://spdx.org/licenses/ for more info on common-license text and the Identifier field.
	* ~~[http://www.superiorpapers.com/~~ http://spdx~~.research paper~~.org/] for more info on SPDX		* http://spdx.org/ for more info on SPDX

	==LICENSE Field Standard==		==LICENSE Field Standard==

Eflanagan: /* License v2 Plan */

2011-11-03T17:58:56Z

License v2 Plan

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 3 November 2011
Line 946:		Line 946:
	* Incorporate a flag to allow the image to contain collected licenses.		* Incorporate a flag to allow the image to contain collected licenses.
	* Ensure that we've gotten rid of all license WARNINGS. (Add license text, correct recipes)		* Ensure that we've gotten rid of all license WARNINGS. (Add license text, correct recipes)
			* Create a way to add additional licenses.
	Stage Two - License decision making:		Stage Two - License decision making:
	* Check to see if the package license field contains an incompatible license. If it does, toss a warning.		* Check to see if the package license field contains an incompatible license. If it does, toss a warning.

Eflanagan: /* License v2 */

2011-10-26T17:51:04Z

License v2

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:51, 26 October 2011
Line 928:		Line 928:
	===License v2===		===License v2===

	Current ~~issues with license that need to be addressed:~~
			==Current License Issues==
	* Parallel bitbake causes inconsistent license reporting		* Parallel bitbake causes inconsistent license reporting
			** This is because we're doing this in the wrong place. During do_rootfs is where we need to do this as the package populates the rootfs.
	This is because we're doing this in the wrong place. During do_rootfs is where we need to do this as the package populates the rootfs.

	* License decision making is non-existent		* License decision making is non-existent
			** Right now, we just grab all licenses listed in the license field. We need to have a decision made based on:
	Right now, we just grab all licenses listed in the license field. We need to have a decision made based on:		*** Tie this in to incompatible license. If something is dual licensed and we can restrict this to a different license, do so
	* Tie this in to incompatible license. If something is dual licensed and we can restrict this to a different license, do so		*** License legal priority (Which license overrides another license?)
	* License legal priority (Which license overrides another license?)		*** License user priority (All things being equal try to provide something under X license first and Y license second)
	* License user priority (All things being equal try to provide something under X license first and Y license second)

	* Add licenses to the image as a conf option		* Add licenses to the image as a conf option
	* Possible (generate spdx license files as part of the manifest). SPDX or not, we need a manifest.		* Possible (generate spdx license files as part of the manifest). SPDX or not, we need a manifest.

			==License v2 Plan==
			Stage One - Fix current defects:
			* Fix where the license collection occurs. This needs to occur during the creation of the rootfs.
			* Ensure that we can use this during a parallel bitbake
			* Incorporate a flag to allow the image to contain collected licenses.
			* Ensure that we've gotten rid of all license WARNINGS. (Add license text, correct recipes)
			Stage Two - License decision making:
			* Check to see if the package license field contains an incompatible license. If it does, toss a warning.
			* Check user/legal license priority.
			** When given FOOv2 \| BARv1, where the user has weighted BARv1 as higher than FOOv2, we would choose BAR.
			** When given FOOv2 & BARv1, where FOOv2 overrides BARv1, use FOOv2 even if the user has weighted BARv1 as higher.
			Stage Three - Manifest:
			* As we do_rootfs we should:
			** Check to see if the package has an SPDX meta-data file.
			*** If it does, use it.
			*** If it doesn't, generate one but mark it as automatically generated and not an official spdx file.
			** Gather up spdx files into a work dir
			* Once the image is finished gather up all the spdx licenses and create an spdx manifest for the image
			* Once the image is finished gather up all the spdx licenses and create a raw text manifest for the image

Eflanagan at 01:20, 20 October 2011

2011-10-20T01:20:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:20, 20 October 2011
Line 925:		Line 925:

	What this means is that, since we are using the python compiler components to parse the LICENSE field, it should be syntactically valid python.		What this means is that, since we are using the python compiler components to parse the LICENSE field, it should be syntactically valid python.

			===License v2===

			Current issues with license that need to be addressed:
			* Parallel bitbake causes inconsistent license reporting

			This is because we're doing this in the wrong place. During do_rootfs is where we need to do this as the package populates the rootfs.

			* License decision making is non-existent

			Right now, we just grab all licenses listed in the license field. We need to have a decision made based on:
			* Tie this in to incompatible license. If something is dual licensed and we can restrict this to a different license, do so
			* License legal priority (Which license overrides another license?)
			* License user priority (All things being equal try to provide something under X license first and Y license second)

			* Add licenses to the image as a conf option
			* Possible (generate spdx license files as part of the manifest). SPDX or not, we need a manifest.

Radabaugh: /* SPDX */

2011-09-21T08:02:43Z

SPDX

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:02, 21 September 2011
Line 10:		Line 10:

	* http://spdx.org/licenses/ for more info on common-license text and the Identifier field.		* http://spdx.org/licenses/ for more info on common-license text and the Identifier field.
	* http://spdx.org/ for more info on SPDX		* [http://www.superiorpapers.com/ http://spdx.research paper.org/] for more info on SPDX

	==LICENSE Field Standard==		==LICENSE Field Standard==

Eflanagan: /* Parsing operations */

2011-06-02T14:44:31Z

Parsing operations

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 2 June 2011
Line 922:		Line 922:
	===Parsing operations===		===Parsing operations===

	The LICENSE field is parsed by converting the field to a [http://docs.python.org/library/ast.html Python Abstract Syntax Tree]		The LICENSE field is parsed by converting the field to a [http://docs.python.org/library/ast.html Python Abstract Syntax Tree]. ASTs are internal to the python compiler and are used by python in the generation of python bytecode. We create, from the LICENSE field after attempting to turn it more "pythonesque", an abstract syntax tree via ast.parse. Using an AST Visitor class, we then dump the ast and visit each node of the tree.

			What this means is that, since we are using the python compiler components to parse the LICENSE field, it should be syntactically valid python.

Eflanagan: /* LICENSE Field Standard */

2011-06-02T14:36:28Z

LICENSE Field Standard

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ===Packages with known LICENSE issues===
 ===Naming===
@@ Line 975: / Line 922: @@
 ===Parsing operations===
-Work in Progress.
+The LICENSE field is parsed by converting the field to a [http://docs.python.org/library/ast.html Python Abstract Syntax Tree]

Eflanagan: /* Example */

2011-05-18T16:13:17Z

Example

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 18 May 2011
Line 975:		Line 975:
	===Parsing operations===		===Parsing operations===

	~~====Example====~~		Work in Progress.