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

Scripts: Added FortAwesome/Font-Awesome license in list of GPL 2 compatible licenses #12929

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 24, 2019

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@bfintal
Copy link
Contributor

bfintal commented Dec 16, 2018

Description

I've added the license (CC-BY-4.0 AND MIT) in the list of GPL 2 compatible licenses, it's the license label used by https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome FontAwesome isn't used in Gutenberg, but the addition is for other projects that can use check-licenses

How has this been tested?

Tests ran: npm run check-licenses and npm run lint-js

Types of changes

New feature: Added (CC-BY-4.0 AND MIT) in the list of GPL 2 compatible licenses

Checklist:

  • My code is tested.
  • My code follows the WordPress code style.
  • My code follows the accessibility standards.
  • My code has proper inline documentation.
  • I've included developer documentation if appropriate.

@bfintal bfintal changed the title Added @fortawesome license in compatible licenses Added FortAwesome/Font-Awesome license in list of GPL 2 compatible licenses Dec 16, 2018

@bfintal bfintal changed the title Added FortAwesome/Font-Awesome license in list of GPL 2 compatible licenses Scripts: Added FortAwesome/Font-Awesome license in list of GPL 2 compatible licenses Dec 16, 2018

@gziolo gziolo requested a review from pento Dec 16, 2018

@pento

pento approved these changes Dec 18, 2018

Copy link
Member

pento left a comment

Both of these licenses are GPL compatible. In the case of Font Awesome, the code is MIT, the icons are CC-BY 4.0 (ref).

@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

aduth commented Dec 18, 2018

An aside to the specific change, but if there's an established pattern of defining multilicensed projects using (X AND Y), maybe we could automate the parsing to check that each are individually valid licenses. As I write this, I see we do this already for "OR" combinations. Perhaps worth creating as a separate task?

@pento

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pento commented Dec 19, 2018

Yah, OR was the more common occurrence when I originally wrote this script, so I just wrote a basic parser for those expressions.

The two major factors for doing it in our own script, instead of using an existing package, were:

  • The official SPDX parser doesn't allow for invalid license strings.
  • There wasn't anything that worked really well for extracting the license from places other than package.json.

We'd probably need to keep our extractor, but something like this could work:

That at least avoids us having to write a proper expression parser.

@aduth aduth force-pushed the bfintal:add/fontawesome-check-licenses branch from ea7e6bb to 6fb6254 Jan 24, 2019

@aduth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

aduth commented Jan 24, 2019

Let's get this in as-is and iterate on improvements separately.

@aduth aduth merged commit 6054e4a into WordPress:master Jan 24, 2019

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@youknowriad youknowriad added this to the 5.0 (Gutenberg) milestone Jan 24, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment