Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 0.9
    • Component/s: license-meta-data
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      <blockquote cite='http://code.google.com/p/arat/issues/detail?id=14'>
      Add GNU License detection with patterns :

      "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
      under the terms of the GNU General Public License"

      version 0.5.1

      Thanks
      </blockquote>

      1. RAT13gplDetection_20111206.txt
        19 kB
        Philipp Ottlinger
      2. RAT13-gplDetection_r1208816.txt
        7 kB
        Philipp Ottlinger

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment -

          I've locally inserted all necessary classes to detect GPL3 or later -
          how shall I change the final report.

          Locally it looks like that:
          *****************************************************
          Summary
          -------
          Generated at: 2011-11-22T23:56:30
          Notes: 1
          Binaries: 0
          Archives: 0
          Standards: 9

          Apache Licensed: 0
          GPLv3 Licensed: 9
          Generated Documents: 0

          JavaDocs are generated and so license header is optional
          Generated files do not required license headers

          0 Unknown Licenses

          *******************************
          <snip>
          Markers look like that:
          !GPL3 pom.xml

          Should I add more classes for GPL1 and GPL2? Or can I just add the GPL3 stuff for review?

          Is there a way to configure which licences I want to see in the final report? There should be a configuration option to select a main licence for the project under test.
          This would make the report more readable.

          Show
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment - I've locally inserted all necessary classes to detect GPL3 or later - how shall I change the final report. Locally it looks like that: ***************************************************** Summary ------- Generated at: 2011-11-22T23:56:30 Notes: 1 Binaries: 0 Archives: 0 Standards: 9 Apache Licensed: 0 GPLv3 Licensed: 9 Generated Documents: 0 JavaDocs are generated and so license header is optional Generated files do not required license headers 0 Unknown Licenses ******************************* <snip> Markers look like that: !GPL3 pom.xml Should I add more classes for GPL1 and GPL2? Or can I just add the GPL3 stuff for review? Is there a way to configure which licences I want to see in the final report? There should be a configuration option to select a main licence for the project under test. This would make the report more readable.
          Hide
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment -

          The default report only talks about standards, Apache and unapproved licenses which is fine as it is geared towards ASF releases.

          While it probably would be good to properly detect the GPL in all its versions (and others) it will be enough to list them under unapproved licenses IMHO.

          Show
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment - The default report only talks about standards, Apache and unapproved licenses which is fine as it is geared towards ASF releases. While it probably would be good to properly detect the GPL in all its versions (and others) it will be enough to list them under unapproved licenses IMHO.
          Hide
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment -

          What do you think of defaulting to ASL but providing a means to define a targetLicence in your pom. This licence is used in the reported and attached to the header with the amount of files found matching this licence.
          Thus you don't loose the compatibility with ASL, but provide a wider usage of RAT?

          Show
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment - What do you think of defaulting to ASL but providing a means to define a targetLicence in your pom. This licence is used in the reported and attached to the header with the amount of files found matching this licence. Thus you don't loose the compatibility with ASL, but provide a wider usage of RAT?
          Hide
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment -

          Using some sort of parameterization for the stylesheet to select a license that is listed more prominently (as the Apache License is by default) sounds OK to me but I'd turn that into a ticket separate from detecting the GPL.

          Show
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment - Using some sort of parameterization for the stylesheet to select a license that is listed more prominently (as the Apache License is by default) sounds OK to me but I'd turn that into a ticket separate from detecting the GPL.
          Hide
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment -

          Patch to differentiate between GPL1,GPL2 and GPL3 with tests.
          Tested on a local one module mvn project with mvn3.0.3/JDK7.

          Show
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment - Patch to differentiate between GPL1,GPL2 and GPL3 with tests. Tested on a local one module mvn project with mvn3.0.3/JDK7.
          Hide
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment -

          Hugo, you seem to have forgotten the GPL* classes themselves in the patch.

          Also, please don't use wildcard imports.

          Thanks!

          Show
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment - Hugo, you seem to have forgotten the GPL* classes themselves in the patch. Also, please don't use wildcard imports. Thanks!
          Hide
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment -

          Sorry for the missing files. Added licence files and reformatted imports in my IDE. Thanks for your feedback.

          Show
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment - Sorry for the missing files. Added licence files and reformatted imports in my IDE. Thanks for your feedback.
          Hide
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment -

          svn revision 1210831 contains your patch with two modifications: (1) I've added the license header and (2) I've removed the author lines as we don't have those in RAT.

          If you disagree with the second part, please let me know and 'll revert the commit.

          Show
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment - svn revision 1210831 contains your patch with two modifications: (1) I've added the license header and (2) I've removed the author lines as we don't have those in RAT. If you disagree with the second part, please let me know and 'll revert the commit.
          Hide
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment - - edited

          No problem, I'm happy to have solved a ticket. Thanks for your corrections.

          Can you solve the ticket after code review and commit or shall I do that?

          Show
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment - - edited No problem, I'm happy to have solved a ticket. Thanks for your corrections. Can you solve the ticket after code review and commit or shall I do that?
          Hide
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment -

          I've tested svn revision 1211382 against some real world GPL sources and it works.

          Show
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment - I've tested svn revision 1211382 against some real world GPL sources and it works.
          Hide
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment -

          Is there a reason why all of the GPL-variants are not added to
          apache-rat-core/src/main/java/org/apache/rat/policy/DefaultPolicy.java?

          Show
          Philipp Ottlinger added a comment - Is there a reason why all of the GPL-variants are not added to apache-rat-core/src/main/java/org/apache/rat/policy/DefaultPolicy.java?
          Hide
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment -

          The major usecase of RAT is validating ASF releases and its defaults are tailored to that.

          Stuff licensed under the GPL (any version of it) is not allowed inside ASF releases. So with the main goal in mind they must not be part of the default set of approved licenses.

          Show
          Stefan Bodewig added a comment - The major usecase of RAT is validating ASF releases and its defaults are tailored to that. Stuff licensed under the GPL (any version of it) is not allowed inside ASF releases. So with the main goal in mind they must not be part of the default set of approved licenses.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              Robert Burrell Donkin
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Development