El diumenge, 1 de juny del 2025, a les 13:17:29 (Hora d’estiu d’Europa central), Ben Cooksley va escriure: > On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 4:42 PM Azhar Momin <azhar-mo...@outlook.com> wrote: > > On 6/1/25 1:14 AM, Ben Cooksley wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 7:42 AM Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> wrote: > >> El divendres, 30 de maig del 2025, a les 13:42:29 (Hora d’estiu d’Europa > >> > >> central), Neal Gompa va escriure: > >> > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 7:36 AM Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > > El divendres, 30 de maig del 2025, a les 13:02:48 (Hora d’estiu > >> > >> d’Europa > >> > >> > > central), Neal Gompa va escriure: > >> > > > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 6:59 AM Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > El divendres, 30 de maig del 2025, a les 12:51:08 (Hora d’estiu > >> > > > > d’Europa > >> > > > > > >> > > > > central), Neal Gompa va escriure: > >> > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 5:54 AM Albert Astals Cid < > >> > >> aa...@kde.org> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > We are trying to move most of the oss-fuzz related files to > >> > >> our > >> > >> > > > > > > reops > >> > > > > > > instead of being in https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/ > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This will allow us to not have to depend on other people to > >> > >> merge > >> > >> > > > > > > changes > >> > > > > > > in them which sometimes creates a bit of friction. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The problem is that those files are licenses under Apache 2 > >> > >> which > >> > >> > > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > not > >> > > > > > > mentioned in > >> > >> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy > >> > >> > > > > > > I would like to propose that we add a point 18 to the policy > >> > >> that > >> > >> > > > > > > says > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 18. Files involved in the oss-fuzz tooling can be licensed > >> > >> under > >> > >> > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > Apache > >> > > > > > > License 2.0 > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Comments? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Please see > >> > >> https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/karchive/-/merge_requests/125/di > >> > >> > > > > > > ffs > >> > > > > > > for one of the various places we would use it. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Why not maintain our own oss-fuzz repo where all this is > >> > >> contained? > >> > >> > > > > > The karchive MR seems to pollute the project with weird binary > >> > >> files > >> > >> > > > > > and such. I'd rather those not be in the repo. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > That's orthogonal to the "Accepting Apache 2" discussion, please > >> > >> let's > >> > >> > > > > focus on that. > >> > > > > >> > > > Honestly, it isn't. Because accepting that stuff at all is kind of > >> > >> the > >> > >> > > > reason for this. > >> > > > I am fine with accepting Apache-2.0 content in a repo that's *all* > >> > > > Apache-2.0 stuff. > >> > > > From both the technical (this is goopy garbage) > >> > > > >> > > Can you please not be so disrespectful with something that is in no > >> > >> way > >> > >> > > garbage? > >> > > >> > The test case data files are *literally* garbage, so I think it is > >> > >> accurate. > >> > >> > > > and licensing > >> > > > (Apache-2.0 with no exception sucks) perspective, I would only be > >> > >> okay > >> > >> > > > with it as its own repository. > >> > > > >> > > Sorry, but that is not going to happen, "tests" for code need to be > >> > >> with > >> > >> > > the code, not somewhere else. > >> > > > >> > > Can you please explain me what problem you have with a dozen of > >> > >> apt-get > >> > >> > > install/cmake/make lines being Apache-2.0? > >> > > > >> > > This is not going to pollute the rest of our code because no one is > >> > >> going > >> > >> > > to need to reuse that for anything else. > >> > > >> > It's not the scripts, it's the garbage data files. > >> > >> The data files are new and if you read the merge request you will see > >> they are > >> licensed under CC0-1.0 > >> > >> > The scripts are not > >> > even copyrightable in the first place and aren't worth this discussion > >> > about Apache-2.0. Moreover, they aren't even needed in our environment > >> > since we already have everything preinstalled in our CI images. > >> > >> Our CI images are not useful/used in this scenario. > > > > Going a bit off topic here, but mind elaborating on this? > > Seems a bit weird to have to compile Qt + involved Frameworks each time we > > want to do a oss-fuzz run - especially when we already have built binaries > > (and it doesn't look like they're doing anything too special when > > compiling > > them either) > > > > There are a few reasons why we can't reuse our existing binaries. > > > > First, OSS-Fuzz isolates its build and runtime environments. Since the > > runtime environment can't access dependencies from the build phase, > > everything must be statically linked into the fuzz targets. > > > > Second, OSS-Fuzz requires all code (including dependencies) to be compiled > > with specific instrumentation flags (like -fsanitize=address) for > > effective > > fuzzing. Their build environment automatically applies the necessary > > compiler flags during compilation. Pre-built binaries, even if statically > > linked, lack this required instrumentation. > > Sounds like it is a separate platform. > > What I was getting at though is if it is intended to deploy this sort of > thing more widely, or we are intending to run it on a fairly regular basis, > then we don't want to be compiling Qt and Frameworks everytime it runs.
We will not be running this, oss-fuzz/Google will be running it (as they do nowadays). We are just moving most of the code to our repos to make it easier to change when needed. Cheers, Albert > > >> > The fuzzer code files basically force the project to be LGPLv3+ > >> > licensed as distributed since the combined work of LGPL-2.1-or-later + > >> > Apache-2.0 means LGPL-3.0-or-later. I would prefer asking Google OSPO > >> > if they can be relicensed to something within our policy instead. They > >> > will likely grant it if we ask. > >> > >> If you want to ask them for a relicensing, sure, but as Ingo mentioned > >> your > >> rationale does not hold water. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Albert > > > > Cheers, > > Ben > > > >> > -- > >> > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > > > > Best Regards, > > Azhar > > Regards, > Ben
