-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
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
Adds basic license check #258
Open
mikesol
wants to merge
3
commits into
purescript:master
Choose a base branch
from
mikesol:license2
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added a comment in the other PR to the same effect, but this isn't quite enough --
licensee
will detect from the LICENSE file, but we want to also pull the licenses out of the manifest files present in the repository in general, all of which is included in thetoManifestFields
function in theLegacyImport
module.We want to check the Bowerfile, Spago file, package.json file, and the LICENSE file and make sure they all match with the
purs.json
(manifest) file, but here we're only checking the LICENSE file.The work to check all those files is done in the legacy import tool already so it's just a matter of pulling it out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I understand. Lemme write it up here and you can tell me if it is correct or not.
Currently, the
API.purs
file is looking for a file calledpurs.json
with various bits of information including a license. In addition to this file, we want to parse other manifests which may also contain a license. Currently, the two additional manifest files we will parse arebower.json
andspago.dhall + packages.dhall
. So, for example, if we were writing it up in a README, it'd look something like this:License
Packages added to the registry must have a valid SPDX license, and that license must be indicated in a manifest file. We determine license validity using the following steps:
purs.json
spago.dhall
bower.json
licensee
to find license files in the package.licensee
with the licenses specified in a package's manifest file(s). If there is a mismatch (ie too many licenses, too few licenses or an incorrect license) we will reject the package.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@thomashoneyman ping regarding this just to make sure I'm on the right track - thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes! Two clarifications:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it be ok if I added the following?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I’m not sure about that — we may always check the other manifests, but in the future you will have to have a purs.json file to publish to the registry. We’re only auto-importing legacy packages
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Scenario: I have a lawyer and I have a new open source license type (not "UNLICENSED"). I have it documented in a
LICENSE
file so consumers understand how to comply. Would this make my package unregisterable? Or do I need to petition to get it in SPDX to be valid? Is creating my own license a good practice or idea? Probably not, but should it straight up not be able to be handled? I could see an argument where it should be aEither SPDX CustomAndIKnowWhatImDoing
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The issue is that we (the registry trustees) also would need to review the license to be sure that it is usable for open source — for example, open enough that we can host the code in the registry backend. Given that our bandwidth is already stretched it’s not something we’d like to take on if we can defer to a widely used standard (SPDX).
If a package does have this requirement in the future, then I’d encourage them to reach out to the registry trustees to see if this restriction can be changed at that time, or just not register the package. Package managers will still let you use the package even if it isn’t registered.