Re: [FOSSology] Job fails at license (fossology 1.3.0)
Hi Kazuo, Thanks for letting me know that it worked. Don't blame yourself. In the next version (1.4) that option for the deprecated license scan won't even be there. Bob Gobeille On Mar 23, 2011, at 7:42 AM, ?? ?? wrote: Hi Bob I uploaded file with options you told, Copyright/Email/URL Analysis MIME-type Analysis (Determine mimetype of every file. Not needed for licenses or buckets) Nomos License Analysis Package Analysis (Parse package headers) I could complete license scan successfully. Thank you for your support and I apologize for my fault. Kazuo. 2011/3/21 Gobeille, Robert bob.gobei...@hp.com Hi Kazuo, I should have spotted this from your first email. You are running the wrong license scanner. What you are doing should work, but it has been replaced by a faster, more accurate scanner. When you upload a file you are given the options: Bucket Analysis Copyright/Email/URL Analysis MIME-type Analysis (Determine mimetype of every file. Not needed for licenses or buckets) Nomos License Analysis Package Analysis (Parse package headers) Spec File Analysis (deprecated. Replaced by Package analysis.) bSAM License Analysis (deprecated) It looks like you are choosing bSAM. Use Nomos License Analysis instead. In v 1.4 that bSAM option has been removed. Bob On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:57 AM, ?? ?? wrote: I can't run license with any file. ___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
[FOSSology] Next Version?
Hello Bob. I noticed In the next version (1.4) ... in the last post. I just recently upgraded 1.2.1. When will 1.4 be available and will I be able to go directly from 1.2.1 to 1.4? Thanks, Ray Westphal. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies from your system. ___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
Re: [FOSSology] Next Version?
Hi Ray, The next FOSSology release (1.4.0) is being functionally tested by the development team now. After this, we will begin package and install/update testing. Typically, our update testing consists of updating from the previous version to the new version. For this next release, that would be testing the upgrade path from 1.3.0 to 1.4.0. Since you are asking specifically about the 1.2.1 to 1.4.0 upgrade path, we can add this to our list as an opportunistic test goal. Mary Mary Laser The FOSSology Project http://fossology.orghttp://fossology.org/ From: fossology-boun...@fossology.org [mailto:fossology-boun...@fossology.org] On Behalf Of Westphal, Raymond W Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:01 AM To: fossology@fossology.org Subject: [FOSSology] Next Version? Hello Bob. I noticed In the next version (1.4) ... in the last post. I just recently upgraded 1.2.1. When will 1.4 be available and will I be able to go directly from 1.2.1 to 1.4? Thanks, Ray Westphal. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies from your system. ___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
[FOSSology] License Identifiers - FOSSology SPDX
Hi all I'm interested in using FOSSology and the SPDX standard for future projects. It would be great to have at least one well supported open source software solution like FOSSology which is using the SPDX standard. This will help all of us to be license compliant and economic whenever we use open source software. However, SPDX is still in definition phase and it probably does not fit perfectly to FOSSology. The license meta data is a very important thing required to automate license analysis and that's the place where I've identified a mismatch, the license short name or license identifier. FOSSology has some very nice metadata for each license, e.g. Date: 2004-01-01 00:00:00 URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt shortname: ASL v2.0 fullname: Apache Software License v2.0 OSIapproved: Yes FSFfree: Yes GPLv2compatible: No GPLv3compatible: Yes copyleft: No notes: for further details see http://fossology.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/fossology/trunk/fossology/agents /license_files/Apachev2.0.meta?revision=HEADview=markup SPDX is using its own license identifier: Full name of License: Apache License 2.0 License Identifier: Apache-2 Source/URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Notes: This version was released: January 2004, This license is OSI certified for further details see http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list Are there any plans to align these identifiers? Does somebody know some other standards used for license meta data? -roger ___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
Re: [FOSSology] License Identifiers - FOSSology SPDX
Yes! We are closely following evolution of the SPDX standard. We will eventually align FOSSology to adopt the standard. Mary Mary Laser The FOSSology Project http://fossology.org -Original Message- From: fossology-boun...@fossology.org [mailto:fossology- boun...@fossology.org] On Behalf Of Roger Meier Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 4:07 PM To: fossology@fossology.org; s...@fossbazaar.org Subject: [FOSSology] License Identifiers - FOSSology SPDX Hi all I'm interested in using FOSSology and the SPDX standard for future projects. It would be great to have at least one well supported open source software solution like FOSSology which is using the SPDX standard. This will help all of us to be license compliant and economic whenever we use open source software. However, SPDX is still in definition phase and it probably does not fit perfectly to FOSSology. The license meta data is a very important thing required to automate license analysis and that's the place where I've identified a mismatch, the license short name or license identifier. FOSSology has some very nice metadata for each license, e.g. Date: 2004-01-01 00:00:00 URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt shortname: ASL v2.0 fullname: Apache Software License v2.0 OSIapproved: Yes FSFfree: Yes GPLv2compatible: No GPLv3compatible: Yes copyleft: No notes: for further details see http://fossology.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/fossology/trunk/fossology/a gents /license_files/Apachev2.0.meta?revision=HEADview=markup SPDX is using its own license identifier: Full name of License: Apache License 2.0 License Identifier: Apache-2 Source/URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Notes: This version was released: January 2004, This license is OSI certified for further details see http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list Are there any plans to align these identifiers? Does somebody know some other standards used for license meta data? -roger ___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology ___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
