Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
tags 906284 + pending thanks This is now fixed in Git, pending upload: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/b0ee727b5f3abe977e5c5f57eedecfd4486cf127 Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
Jonathan Dowland wrote: > you wanted a corpus of good and bad texts to test against. Is that > still the case? Anyone who implements the Lintian change will require updating the testsuite, so yes. > > I like how this implies that Lintian, too, is a hacky script... > > Sorry if it can be interpreted that way, that is not what I meant. (Ah, shame...) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
Hi! On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:16:27AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: (I like how this implies that Lintian, too, is a hacky script...) Sorry if it can be interpreted that way, that is not what I meant. Do let me know when you are happy with the output so we can update Lintian, etc. I think I've proved the concept that Julien suggested, but I have not attempted to write a lintian patch. Who is proposing to do what? Looking back over the bug history, Chris, you seemed keen to make the lintain change, but you wanted a corpus of good and bad texts to test against. Is that still the case? Thanks, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
Hi, > I attempted to simulate this change in Lintian with a totally > separate hacky script (I like how this implies that Lintian, too, is a hacky script...) Do let me know when you are happy with the output so we can update Lintian, etc. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
Interestingly, 307 is roughly half of all CC-license using packages, based on the numbers I counted in #795402 -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
forcemerge 906284 907272 thanks Hi, This looks like #906284 - let's at least centralise the on-going discussion there (and vice versa). Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
Hi Julian & Jonathan,
> How about the following? In the parse_license function, where each
> license paragraph is parsed, something like the following:
>
> if ($full_license and $short_license =~ m/cc-/) {
> if ($full_license !~ /definitions/i) {
> tag 'incomplete-creative-commons-license';
> }
> }
Jonathan, any input on this?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 04:32:08PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> > The test for the human-readable rather than legal text of the Creative
> > Commons licenses seems to fail, because the preamble about Creative
> > Commons not being a law firm is not part of the license text, and
> > neither is the postamble about Creative Commons not being a party to
> > the license agreement; they are instead form the terms and conditions
> > between Creative Commons and the person using a CC license. So I
> > cannot see why these parts should necessarily be included in the
> > Debian copyright file. Has there been a policy decision to require
> > this, perhaps?
> >
> > Also, it seems that this check would be better in the parse_license
> > function when checking each license block rather than the run
> > function, as there might be more than one CC license in a copyright
> > file, and it is feasible that one is correct and one not.
>
> CC'ing Jonathan Dowland who filed the original request for this
> in #903470. Could you folks come to some agreement on a good/reliable
> check?
Hi Chris and Jonathan,
How about the following? In the parse_license function, where each
license paragraph is parsed, something like the following:
if ($full_license and $short_license =~ m/cc-/) {
if ($full_license !~ /definitions/i) {
tag 'incomplete-creative-commons-license';
}
}
All of the full legal texts contain "Section 1. Definitions", whereas
the human-readable summaries don't.
This also means that you are not searching the entire copyright file,
but rather just the paragraph with the full Creative Commons text.
Best wishes,
Julian
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
Hi Julian, > The test for the human-readable rather than legal text of the Creative > Commons licenses seems to fail, because the preamble about Creative > Commons not being a law firm is not part of the license text, and > neither is the postamble about Creative Commons not being a party to > the license agreement; they are instead form the terms and conditions > between Creative Commons and the person using a CC license. So I > cannot see why these parts should necessarily be included in the > Debian copyright file. Has there been a policy decision to require > this, perhaps? > > Also, it seems that this check would be better in the parse_license > function when checking each license block rather than the run > function, as there might be more than one CC license in a copyright > file, and it is feasible that one is correct and one not. CC'ing Jonathan Dowland who filed the original request for this in #903470. Could you folks come to some agreement on a good/reliable check? Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#906284: lintian: check for incomplete-creative-commons-license gives false positives: the "not a law firm" is a preamble, not a license
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.96 Severity: normal The test for the human-readable rather than legal text of the Creative Commons licenses seems to fail, because the preamble about Creative Commons not being a law firm is not part of the license text, and neither is the postamble about Creative Commons not being a party to the license agreement; they are instead form the terms and conditions between Creative Commons and the person using a CC license. So I cannot see why these parts should necessarily be included in the Debian copyright file. Has there been a policy decision to require this, perhaps? Also, it seems that this check would be better in the parse_license function when checking each license block rather than the run function, as there might be more than one CC license in a copyright file, and it is feasible that one is correct and one not. Best wishes, Julian -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers stretch APT policy: (500, 'stretch'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_GB.UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_GB.UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.31.1-2 ii bzip2 1.0.6-8.1 ii diffstat 1.61-1+b1 ii dpkg 1.19.0.5+b1 ii file 1:5.34-2 ii gettext0.19.8.1-6+b1 ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.4 ii libapt-pkg-perl0.1.34 ii libarchive-zip-perl1.60-1 ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.51-1 ii libclone-perl 0.39-1 ii libdpkg-perl 1.19.0.5 ii libemail-valid-perl1.202-1 ii libfile-basedir-perl 0.08-1 ii libipc-run-perl20180523.0-1 ii liblist-moreutils-perl 0.416-1+b3 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-12 ii libtext-levenshtein-perl 0.13-1 ii libtimedate-perl 2.3000-2 ii liburi-perl1.74-1 ii libxml-simple-perl 2.25-1 ii libyaml-libyaml-perl 0.72+repack-1 ii man-db 2.8.4-2 ii patchutils 0.3.4-2 ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.26.2-7 ii t1utils1.41-2 ii xz-utils 5.2.2-1.3 Versions of packages lintian recommends: ii libperlio-gzip-perl 0.19-1+b4 Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch ii dpkg-dev 1.19.0.5 ii libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3+b2 ii libtext-template-perl 1.53-1 -- no debconf information
