[FOSSology] License Tree
Hello The licence tree function is no more avaliable. I send an email to Bruno Cornec and he answered that it was replaced by License List. We are not fully satisfied by the Licence List. Indeed, we appreciated to be able to double-clicked and to access directly to the licence text in order to read it. This is still possible to do that but it required to look for the file ans it takes more time. It could become difficult to perform analysis for important SW. We have also one question. When it is written for example *LGPL_v2.1+*, we understand that the licence is not fully compliant. We don't know: - if all the licence texts are the same in this bucket or - if you put all the licence texts that are not fully compliant in it and, in this case, we would have different differences that we would have to detect. Thank you for support. Best regards Patrick PS: the new feature called Copyright/Email/URL Browser is very nice! _ Patrick Moreau INRIA Technology Transfer and Innovation Department Software Assets Manager Domaine de Voluceau - Rocquencourt B.P. 105 - 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex Tél: +33 1 39 63 78 40 Fax: +33 1 39 63 51 14 E-mail: patrick.mor...@inria.fr If this doesn't meet your needs for some reason it would be helpful to know why. That said, there is a known issue with License List and the old license tree, they are both very slow. This feature was helping us a lot as we use Fossology to perform license compliance analysis of our software. This analysis is based on the SW architecture and is performed component by component. The new release will required to performed a manual mapping. So, I have 2 questions: - do you know if a new feature (that we do not have yet discovered) could help us? - if not, do you think that the license tree feature can be added in the next releases? Many thanks. ___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
Re: [FOSSology] License Tree
Hello Patrick, On May 13, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Moreau Patrick wrote: The licence tree function is no more avaliable. I send an email to Bruno Cornec and he answered that it was replaced by License List. We are not fully satisfied by the Licence List. Indeed, we appreciated to be able to double-clicked and to access directly to the licence text in order to read it. When you say that you want to read the license text, I think you mean that you want to view the file that you uploaded. That is you want to view the file that contains a license reference. This is opposed to view the text of the actual license (e.g. the full GPL license text). Is that right? This is still possible to do that but it required to look for the file ans it takes more time. It could become difficult to perform analysis for important SW. It sounds like you are using the license list as a license browser. Why don't you use the license browser instead? Do you prefer the format of all the files listed on a single page? The purpose of the License List is to give people a list of all file paths and their licenses so they can do processing outside of fossology. So for that, the links were unwanted. Putting them in would be easy but I'd like to hear from more people who use this function before deciding what to do. It would really help to know why you use this instead of the license browser. If we need the links in the License List, I'd be tempted to create a new web page where you choose what you want in the list (like links or not), and if you want to view or download it. I think that would satisfy the most people. How much does the slowness of License List (or License Tree) bother you? We have also one question. When it is written for example LGPL_v2.1+, we understand that the licence is not fully compliant. We don't know: Why do you say that it is not compliant? To me compliance means that you are complying with the license terms. LGPL, out of context, doesn't mean you are in or out of compliance. I think I need more context around what you are trying to do. - if all the licence texts are the same in this bucket What is the definition of your bucket? or - if you put all the licence texts that are not fully compliant in it and, in this case, we would have different differences that we would have to detect. Are you referring to the GPL demo bucket? If so, any license that has GPL in it is put in that bucket. So LGPL, GPLv2, GPLv3, Affero GPL, ... all go in it. That bucket was only a sample to show how to create a simple bucket. If you are really using this bucket, you might consider other buckets to be more useful. For example, a copyleft bucket, or a source required bucket. I've been wanting to create those buckets for a while but haven't found the time to figure out what should be in them. Thank you for support. Best regards Patrick PS: the new feature called Copyright/Email/URL Browser is very nice! Thank you. :-) Bob Gobeille___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
[FOSSology] FOSSology 1.4.0 Release Candidate 7
Greetings FOSSologists! The FOSSology Project is pleased to announce RC7 packages for FOSSology 1.4.0. Unofficial install packages on the following platforms distros are now available for download and testing: § Debian/Ubuntu Packages (amd64 i386) http://fossology.org/debian/1.4.0/ For debian squeeze installs, add this line to your sources.list deb http://fossology.org/debian/1.4.0/squeeze/ ./ For debian lenny installs, add this line to your sources.list deb http://fossology.org/debian/1.4.0/lenny/./ For ubuntu: deb http://fossology.org/debian/ubuntu/karmic/ ./ deb http://fossology.org/debian/ubuntu/lucid/ ./ deb http://fossology.org/debian/ubuntu/maverick/ ./ § RPM Packages (rhel5/centos5, rhel6/centos6, fedora12, fedora13, fedora14 for i386 and x86_64) http://fossology.org/rpms/ Note for Rhel6 packages: 1 dependency, php-process, is not available from the default rhel repository. You can download a copy from: http://fossology.org/rpms/epel/testing/6/i386/php-process-5.3.2-6.el6_0.1.i686.rpm http://fossology.org/rpms/epel/testing/6/x86_64/php-process-5.3.2-6.el6_0.1.x86_64.rpm Or you need apply this update: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0195.html To use yum install, you need to edit the repo file, /etc/yum.repo.d/: 1. Rhel/CentOS repo file need add following lines: # FOSSology release candidates and other special builds [fossology-testing] name=Fossology testing baseurl=http://fossology.org/rpms/epel/testing/$releasever/$basearch enabled=0 gpgcheck=0 2. Fedora repo file need add following lines: # FOSSology release candidates and other special builds [fossology-testing] name=Fossology testing baseurl=http://fossology.org/rpms/fedora/testing/$releasever/$basearch enabled=0 gpgcheck=0 3. yum --enablerepo=fossology-testing install fossology New features/enhancements include: § New Comparison tool. This allows one to focus on the differences between two file trees. For example, you might want to compare two versions of a package to see what licenses changed. § A new simplified User Interface AND the option to assign the Simplified or Original UI on a per user basis. § Implement authentication using Siteminder § Improved user documentation § Multiple file upload from URL § Dramatic improvements in the copyright agent. § 1.4.0 Defect Listhttp://bugs.linux-foundation.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDtarget_milestone=1.3.1target_milestone=1.4product=FOSSology Please report bugs using our bug reporting system hosted by The Linux Foundation at http://bugs.linux-foundation.org/ OR, write to the fossology mailing list at fossology@fossology.orgmailto:fossology@fossology.org. The FOSSology Project http://fossology.orghttp://fossology.org/ ___ fossology mailing list fossology@fossology.org http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
