Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature: Please consider "Zope Public License" #43

Open
fhg-isi opened this issue Jul 26, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Feature: Please consider "Zope Public License" #43

fhg-isi opened this issue Jul 26, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@fhg-isi
Copy link

fhg-isi commented Jul 26, 2023

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe

I use the library waitress, having a "Zope Public License":

https://github.com/Pylons/waitress
https://github.com/Pylons/waitress/blob/main/LICENSE.txt

licensecheck yields

WARN: 'ZOPE PUBLIC LICENSE' License not identified so falling back to NO_LICENSE

Describe the solution you'd like

Consider the license

Describe alternatives you've considered

Support of a whitelist, so that I can alter the behavior of licensecheck by configuration.

@fhg-isi fhg-isi added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 26, 2023
@fhg-isi
Copy link
Author

fhg-isi commented Jul 26, 2023

As for the alternative, just saw the --ignore-licenses option:
https://github.com/FHPythonUtils/LicenseCheck#help
and tried to apply it to add Zope Public License to the white list.

However, following settings do not seem to work

[tool.licensecheck]
using = 'PEP631'
zero = true  # results in non-zero exit code if incompatibilities are found
ignore-licenses = [
    'Zope Public License', # not known by licensecheck; similar to BSD and compatible to agplv3
    'Apache Software License'  # currently there is a bug about the compatibility of apache license and agplv3; therefore we ignore it
]

Exit code is still 1 and licenses are shown as not compatible:

┏━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Compatible ┃ Package        ┃ License(s)              ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ ✔          │ Flask          │ BSD License             │
│ ✔          │ Flask-Compress │ MIT License             │
│ ✔          │ Flask-Cors     │ MIT License             │
│ ✔          │ Werkzeug       │ BSD License             │
│ ✔          │ XlsxWriter     │ BSD License             │
│ ✔          │ numpy          │ BSD License             │
│ ✔          │ openpyxl       │ MIT License             │
│ ✔          │ pandas         │ BSD License             │
│ ✖          │ requests       │ Apache Software License │
│ ✔          │ urllib3        │ MIT License             │
│ ✖          │ waitress       │ Zope Public License     │
│ ✖          │ watchdog       │ Apache Software License │
└────────────┴────────────────┴─────────────────────────┘

@FredHappyface FredHappyface modified the milestones: Backlog , Next Version Jul 28, 2023
@NicolaDonelli
Copy link
Contributor

NicolaDonelli commented Aug 28, 2023

@fhg-isi you could try to use the ignore-packages flag

[tool.licensecheck]
using = 'PEP631'
ignore_packages = ['requests', 'waitress', 'watchdog']
zero = true

@FredHappyface
Copy link
Member

Hopefully the ignore-licenses has been fixed. But yeah the ignore-packages is another workaround you may want to use. Also depending on how you use licensecheck you may just want to make a note when using it / for the development team? Of course this is a different story for CICD. I'll be sure to investigate this further and hopefully can confirm a fix for that behaviour

Not sure when I'll be supporting Zope public license yet, there are a few bits of refactoring I'd like to do to support unknown compatibility states and improve compatibility management

@fhg-isi
Copy link
Author

fhg-isi commented Jan 16, 2024

Hopefully the ignore-licenses has been fixed

Nope. But ignoring the individual package(s) that use that license worked as a workaround.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants