Pil0tXia commented on code in PR #4827: URL: https://github.com/apache/eventmesh/pull/4827#discussion_r1575749228
########## .github/workflows/license.yml: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +# +# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more +# contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with +# this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. +# The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 +# (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with +# the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at +# +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +# +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software +# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, +# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. +# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and +# limitations under the License. +# + +name: 'License Check' +on: [pull_request] + +permissions: + contents: read + +jobs: + dependency-review: + runs-on: ubuntu-latest + steps: + - name: 'Checkout Repository' + uses: actions/checkout@v4 + - name: 'Check license header' + uses: apache/skywalking-eyes@main + - name: 'Dependency Review' + uses: actions/dependency-review-action@v4 + with: + vulnerability-check: false + license-check: true + # Incompatible licenses addressed here: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html + # Special notice for GPL licenses: https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html + # Find SPDX identifiers here: https://spdx.org/licenses/ + deny-licenses: > + MS-LPL, BUSL-1.1, + CC-BY-NC-1.0, CC-BY-NC-2.0, CC-BY-NC-2.5, CC-BY-NC-3.0, CC-BY-NC-4.0, + GPL-1.0, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, LGPL-2.0, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3.0, + GPL-1.0-only, GPL-2.0-only, GPL-3.0-only, AGPL-3.0-only, LGPL-2.0-only, LGPL-2.1-only, LGPL-3.0-only, + QPL-1.0, Sleepycat, SSPL-1.0, CPOL-1.02, + BSD-4-Clause, BSD-4-Clause-UC, NPL-1.0, NPL-1.1, JSON Review Comment: >The process of adding a new dependency by an external contributor doesn't have to be easy. Yes, I agree with your perspective. Whether it's maintaining a dependency whitelist or a license whitelist, neither task is easy. Maintaining a dependency blacklist is impractical, but maintaining a license blacklist essentially requires a one-time effort. That's why I believe a license blacklist would be more suitable for our community~ I hope for your understanding.☺️ -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@eventmesh.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@eventmesh.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@eventmesh.apache.org
