Bug #3231

nomos fix missing license phrases/references

Added by Bob Gobeille 10 months ago. Updated 8 months ago.

Status:Closed Start date:08/06/2012
Priority:High Due date:
Assignee:Mary Laser % Done:

0%

Category:Nomos
Target version:2.1.0
Rank:2 Tester:

Description

I've found again few missing license phrases/references.
I haven't had time to install 2.0 yet, so these correction proposals
are based on my findings on 1.4.1. All referred
files are included in test-files.zip.

Thanks
Raino

----------
File: rtctype.h, findme.c, connection.h
Detected: No_license_found
Should be: See-file(COPYING)

Proposal:
STRINGS.in: #
ENTRY _LT_SEE_COPYING_13
KEY "\<files?\>"
STR "license (may|can) =FEW= be found in the root directory =FEW= in
the copying file" #
ENTRY _LT_SEE_COPYING_14
KEY "licen[cs]"
STR "licensing details are in the copying file" #
ENTRY _LT_SEE_COPYING_15
KEY "copyright"
STR "copyright =SOME= see copying?txt"

----------
File: bzip2.c
Detected: No_license_found
Should be: See-file(LICENSE)

Proposal:
STRINGS.in: #
ENTRY _LT_SEE_LICENSE_13
KEY "licen[cs]"
STR "see =FEW= license file =FEW= for more information"

----------
File: lualib.h
Detected: No_license_found
Should be: See-doc(OTHER)

Proposal:
STRINGS.in: #
ENTRY _LT_SEE_OTHER_12
KEY "copyright"
STR "see copyright notice in lua\.?h"

----------
File: app_exec.c, s_erf.c, basename.c
Detected: No_license_found
Should be: BSD-lite

Proposal:
STRINGS.in: #
ENTRY _LT_FREE_83
KEY "restrict"
STR "code is released =FEW= with no restrictions on usage" #
ENTRY _LT_FREE_84
KEY "restrict"
STR "you may (re|)distribute (and|or|and/or) modify =FEW= without
restriction of copyright" #
ENTRY _LT_FREE_85
KEY "permi[st]"
STR "permission to use copy modify and distribute this software is
freely granted provided that this notice is preserved"

----------
File: hashlib.py
Detected: No_license_found
Should be: Python

Proposal:
STRINGS.in: #
ENTRY _LT_PYTHON_4
KEY "licen[cs]"
STR "licensed to PSF under (a|the|) contributor agreement"

parse.c:
/* * Python and EGenix.com look a bit alike * Q: should all these Python checks be a family-check like OpenLDAP?
*/
if (INFILE) {
INTERESTING;
}
else if (INFILE) {
INTERESTING;
lmem[_mPYTHON] = 1;
}
else if (!lmem[_mPYTHON] && lmem[_mPYTH_TEXT]) {
if (INFILE || INFILE) {

...etc...

----------
File: crtlicense.txt
Detected: Python
Should be: Microsoft, Python

Proposal:
STRINGS.in: #
ENTRY _LT_MSCORPref1
KEY "distribut"
STR "program is linked with (|and uses) microsoft distributable code"

parse.c:
...cut...
else if (INFILE) {
INTERESTING" : "Microsoft");
lmem[_fMSCORP] = 1;
}
else if (INFILE) {
INTERESTING;
lmem[_fMSCORP] = 1;
}
}
/* * Santa Cruz Operation (SCO)
*/

----------
File: clisp.cxx
Detected: GPL
Should be: GPL_v3+

Proposal:
STRINGS.in: #
ENTRY _LT_GPL3ref2
KEY "licen[cs]"
STR "licensed =FEW= under version 3 or any later version of the GNU
General Public License"

parse.c:
...cut...
else if (GPL_INFILE(_LT_GPL3ref)) {
INTERESTING" : "GPL_v3");
lmem[_mGPL] = 1;
}
else if (GPL_INFILE(_LT_GPL3ref2)) {
INTERESTING;
lmem[_mGPL] = 1;
}


test-files.zip (24 kB) Bob Gobeille, 08/06/2012 03:23 pm

History

Updated by Paul Holland 9 months ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to High
  • Target version deleted (2.1.0)
  • Rank set to 2
  • IterNum set to 8

Updated by Bob Gobeille 9 months ago

  • Status changed from New to Resolved

fixed in svn 6176

Updated by Paul Holland 9 months ago

  • Target version set to 2.1.0

Updated by Paul Holland 8 months ago

  • Assignee changed from Bob Gobeille to Mary Laser

Updated by Mary Laser 8 months ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to In Progress
  • Assignee changed from Mary Laser to Bob Gobeille

Licenses in the test files are identified correctly EXCEPT for test-files.zip/app_exec.c. License should be BSD-lite.

test-files.zip/rtctype.h: See-file(COPYING)
test-files.zip/findme.c: See-file(COPYING)
test-files.zip/hashlib.py: Python
test-files.zip/lualib.h: See-doc(OTHER)
test-files.zip/app_exec.c:
test-files.zip/connection.h: See-file(COPYING)
test-files.zip/clisp.cxx: GPL_v3+
test-files.zip/basename.c: BSD-lite
test-files.zip/crtlicense.txt: Microsoft ,Python
test-files.zip/bzip2.c: See-file(LICENSE)
test-files.zip/s_erf.c: BSD-lite

Updated by Bob Gobeille 8 months ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Assignee changed from Bob Gobeille to Mary Laser

Perhaps something is wrong with your test. Nomos always prints something out, even if it is No_license_found. I get the correct license:

bobg@bobg:~/fossology/trunk/fossology/src/nomos/agent_tests/RH.dir/3231$ ../../../agent/nomos app_exec.c
File app_exec.c contains license(s) BSD-lite

Updated by Mary Laser 8 months ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Closed

Hi Bob, thanks for checking this out. I do get the same result as you when I invoke nomos on the command line with the single file, app_exec.c:
laser@fluffy:~/fossology/src/nomos/agent$ /usr/local/etc/fossology/mods-enabled/nomos/agent/nomos ~/app_exec.c
File app_exec.c contains license(s) BSD-lite

I also get the correct result when I use one-shot nomos in the UI:
A one shot license analysis shows the following license(s) in file app_exec.c: BSD-lite

And finally, I used the UI to delete test-files.zip and re-ran nomos. This time, the results is correct!
test-files.zip/rtctype.h: See-file(COPYING)
test-files.zip/findme.c: See-file(COPYING)
test-files.zip/hashlib.py: Python
test-files.zip/lualib.h: See-doc(OTHER)
test-files.zip/app_exec.c: BSD-lite
test-files.zip/connection.h: See-file(COPYING)
test-files.zip/clisp.cxx: GPL_v3+
test-files.zip/basename.c: BSD-lite
test-files.zip/crtlicense.txt: Microsoft ,Python
test-files.zip/bzip2.c: See-file(LICENSE)
test-files.zip/s_erf.c: BSD-lite

Appears to be fixed!

Also available in: Atom PDF