Hello Ruben, I'll take this as a +1 vote to make it easier to add new license signatures. That makes one vote so far. I hope we hear from others.
Until it gets easier (and I hope to hear from enough other users to raise the priority) I can give you a few hints: 1. If you send me your licenses and test files (need not be the entire file, just the section with the license), I'll update the code for you and release it as part of FOSSology. This way you don't have to maintain your license signatures for each fossology release and I'll test to make sure the new signature doesn't interfere with previous signatures. 2. When you are testing your new signature, use nomos stand alone, like "nomos myfile.c" and it will print out the license without putting the data in the database. 3. In parse.c there is an ifdef commenting out a couple of debug lines. They generate a lot of output to help you determine which signatures were tried and which were successful. Unfortunately, I can't reach my development server right now so I can't give you some pointers on what to look for in the output. I'll try to create some documentation on our wiki (fossology.org) when I get access to my server back. Thanks for your suggestion. I hope to hear from others to get a clearer picture of our priorities. Bob Gobeille On Oct 17, 2012, at 3:53 AM, "Stein, Ruben" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Robert, > > if you need some user voices to raise the priorities: here we go! > > As a research institute we are working a lot with open source software. To > improve our awareness and to sort out unwanted license dependencies for > industry projects, I installed Fossology. The tool itself is very helpful > to identify the hot-spots. It got difficult after I wanted the "unknown > license" chunk of files to get smaller. > > First of all it was difficult to add new license RegExes at all, since I > needed changes in the STRINGS.IN, which is not documented in a really good > fashion, as well as code changes in the agent. It was a real pain to debug > the new regexes, since every change in STRINGS.IN caused a time consuming > generation process by the make file of the agent. > Then, after I finally managed adding my regexes I tried them on real data > with Fossology. The missing highlighting of matches makes debugging new > regexes appear like some kind of quiz game. After I then managed to find > the issue, rescheduling the new agent with prior removing of old results > via SQL console was also very uncomfortable. > > In general I think the whole workflow of adding custom search expressions > or adjusting existing ones is by far too complicated. What I thought of > was some kind of scripting-language agent which passes all the evaluation > work to a python? script which then can react directly on definition > changes of a user-frontend. The resulting performance would be sufficient > for many smaller searches we are performing at our site. > > So - since I think I am still at the beginning of using Fossology, please > point out everything I might have missed. > > Regards, Ruben > > -- > Dipl.-Inf. Ruben Stein > Software Developer > > Fraunhofer MEVIS > Institute for Medical Image Computing > Universitätsallee 29 > 28359 Bremen, Germany > > http://www.mevis.fraunhofer.de > > > -----Original Message----- > From: <Gobeille>, Robert <[email protected]> > Date: Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2012 22:50 > To: "Deveaud, Marion" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FOSSology] FOSSology + Antelink Reporter > >> Hello Marion, >> Right now we are just trying to gauge the interest in a FOSSology - >> Antepedia plugin. So we haven't talked about information exchange >> formats. >> >> Highlighting license signatures is something I'd dearly love to have. >> Unfortunately, the way the code was written makes this difficult. >> Another thing I'd like to have is a way to add signatures that doesn't >> require recompiling the code and makes it easy for users to build a >> private signature library. This is also difficult with the current code. >> Hearing from users is what we need to raise the priority of doing this. >> >> You are right that we are planning on doing something with SPDX. In >> 2.2.0 we plan to synchronize our license names with SPDX and add licenses >> in SPDX that are not in FOSSology. If making small changes to the >> license names is going to cause any grief, I sure hope people speak up. >> Also on the SPDX front, our friends at the University of Nebraska, Omaha >> are currently working on an SPDX plugin (thank you Matt Germonprez and >> Liang Cao!). >> >> Thank you so much for your input! >> >> Bob Gobeille >> >> On Oct 16, 2012, at 1:22 PM, "Deveaud, Marion" >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Robert, >>> >>> I think it is a good idea to integrate FOSSology into a bigger software >>> analysis framework. The FOSSology plugin is a great benefit for >>> Antepedia users working in companies where license compliance is of >>> prime importance. Both projects will certainly profit a lot from each >>> other. >>> What format is used to exchange information between FOSSology and >>> Antepedia? >>> >>> Regarding what could be added to FOSSology, I think it would be very >>> helpful to have the license signatures highlighted in the original >>> source file. >>> A SPDX agent would also be a nice feature but you certainly already >>> planed it in the roadmap. >>> >>> With Kind Regards, >>> -Marion Deveaud- >>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von >>>> Gobeille, Robert >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. Oktober 2012 23:07 >>>> An: [email protected] >>>> Betreff: [FOSSology] FOSSology + Antelink Reporter >>>> >>>> What does everyone think about a FOSSology plugin for >>>> Antepedia Reporter? >>>> >>>> http://www.antelink.com/blog/antepedia-reporter-fossology-best >>>> -class-solutions-open-source-scanning-and-3rd-party-component- >>>> >>>> Antepedia is a commercial product but this would be an >>>> optional plugin. >>>> We've already written a FOSSology cli program that integrates >>>> with Antepedia SourceSquare and another that uses the >>>> Antepedia knowledge base. These identify (aka Discovery) >>>> open source projects in a FOSSology upload. >>>> >>>> Also, what would you like to see added to FOSSology? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Bob Gobeille >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> fossology mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fossology mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fossology mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology _______________________________________________ fossology mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
