Add check for SPDX license identifier #144
Conversation
|
Not too excited about this, as it will generate a flood of messages either way. |
|
Yes this will but another option is just say something like |
|
@razzeee I'll add a check for Should we ignore files if the tag is present in the |
|
License tag should already be mandatory. What this should do is see if doesn't match the SPDX format and suggest it. Same for the python files. |
mzfr
force-pushed
the
License-identifier
branch
from
50d4f3c
to
419fbcb
Compare
mzfr
force-pushed
the
License-identifier
branch
from
419fbcb
to
710c192
Compare
|
@razzeee Is there any other changes required in this PR? |
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| license_text = parsed_xml.find("extension/license").text | ||
| spdx_string = "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This forces every add-on to be GPLv2+.
I don't think that was your intention.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh Yeah, I think I just did what was given to me as an example. Without keeping in mind that XBMC also have MIT, LPGL, BSD etc.
I'll fix this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Rechi There's a problem with the identification of Licenses, lot's of addon have GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007 this type of text in their license tag. Now should I follow the identifiers in https://spdx.org/licenses/, doing that will generate an error on the type I mentioned above or should I just check that the license tag is non-empty, but doing this will pass all types of Licenses including any random string in the license tag.
One solution could be that we create a dictionary of all the license that we need and then use it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I already mentioned at another PR, first require the licence tag to be listed exactly once and have a non empty string as value.
Also there is no reason to disallow non standard licences.
mzfr
force-pushed
the
License-identifier
branch
from
408ecc4
to
64170b9
Compare
Rechi
force-pushed
the
License-identifier
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2d2fb6b
to
e0224aa
Compare
|
Do we really want these two checks? a) Not looking forward to having to have a license string in every file |
Fixes #126
Should this be reported as a
WARNINGor justINFORMATION?