On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 02:13:00PM -0600, Brian Inglis wrote: > On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:37:23 +0100, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: > > I'm trying to upload a new version of git-filter-repo, and took the > > opportunity to set the LICENSE value in the cygport file. The new value > > looks valid according to my reading of the SPDX specification, but is > > being rejected by calm. > > The license for git-filter-repo is a bit complicated, because different > > parts have different licenses, and several of them aren't "normal" > > licenses. The license is described at [0] and files referenced / linked > > from there. > > [0]: https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo/blob/main/COPYING > > I've encoded this as the somewhat verbose > > LICENSE='(MIT OR LicenseRef-inherit-git OR LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2) > > AND (MIT OR LicenseRef-inherit-git OR LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2 OR > > LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2-examples) AND GPL-2.0-only' > > The error I'm getting from calm is as follows: > > ``` > > ERROR: invalid hints git-filter-repo-2.38.0-1-src.hint > > ERROR: package 'git-filter-repo': errors in license expression: ['Unknown > > license key(s): LicenseRef-inherit-git, LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2, > > LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2-examples'] > > ERROR: errors while parsing hints for package 'git-filter-repo' > > ERROR: error parsing /sourceware/cygwin-staging/home/Adam > > Dinwoodie/noarch/release/git-filter-repo/git-filter-repo-2.38.0-1-src.hint > > ERROR: error while reading uploaded arch noarch packages from maintainer > > Adam Dinwoodie > > SUMMARY: 5 ERROR(s) > > ``` > > So it looks like the issue is the way I've encoded the non-standard > > licensing options. "LicenseRef-"(idstring) seems to be the way to > > encode this sort scenario, per [1] and [2], but that doesn't seem to be > > acceptable to calm. > > [1]: > > https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/other-licensing-information-detected/ > > [2]: https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/ > > Are there any suggestions about how to resolve this? I don't think I > > can just use the standard license strings: even if we used GPL-2.0-only > > in place of LicenseRef-inherit-git -- incorrect as that's the license > > *currently* used by Git, but the license for git-filter-repo explicitly > > incorporates any future OSS license Git might use -- that still leaves > > the problem of LicenseRef-inherit-libgit2, which is currently GPL 2.0 > > with an exception that's not covered by any of the SPDX standard > > exceptions. > > For now I can just remove the LICENSE values to get the build released, > > but that seems like a temporary approach at best... > > To a similar issue of mine in another thread here (search license) Jon > replied calm uses: > > https://github.com/nexB/license-expression > > produced by the same project/dev as scancode (which scans a codebase to > identify licences as part of project AboutCode), which has registered an > SPDX namespace for its own LicenceRefs available at: > > https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/ > > which makes me believe Cygwin should use LicenseRef-scancode-public-domain > or as referenced there LicenseRef-PublicDomain, and license-expression > should be able to use the scancode list.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Neither LicenseRef-scancode-public-domain nor LicenseRef-PublicDomain look appropriate here, as none of the code has been placed in the public domain. I'm a bit confused about the "Cygwin should use" point, too: are you saying that Cygwin itself should be declared as having a public domain license? I think that's not true, too, per https://cygwin.com/licensing.html
