New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
license: permit no license for non-core taps, add exempted license groups #8211
Conversation
As far as I know, the GitHub API only returns the identifiers listed here. From those, it looks like the only issues we'll have are with:
|
Yeh, that's what I was thinking. If the "key" there is specified: require/allow one of the "values". |
Ok, I've tweaked the license matching code against GitHub. This should be ready assuming full tests pass. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few nits but good to merge after.
Co-authored-by: Mike McQuaid <mike@mikemcquaid.com>
Thanks for the reviews! |
brew style
with your changes locally?brew tests
with your changes locally?With this pull request, it's OK for non-core taps to either not specify a license or to say that the license is
NOASSERTION
.Furthermore, the GitHub license detection system is not perfect. Create groups of permitted licenses where the license will be considered matching if both the GitHub license and the formula license are members of the same groups. Currently this just applies to GPLv2 and GPLv3. cc @Rylan12 and @chenrui333 for feedback on if they've seen other bad license detection.