Missing license #21
Comments
|
The license is EPL 1.0 Yes, AT&T made a weird license choice (again). The EPL is particularly ambiguous about the reusability of "modules", and this is a project that consists largely of libraries. I would have liked to use AST's regex code but avoided this because I couldn't guarantee license compatibility everywhere I might have wanted it. |
|
It is a little tricky because this repo contains many independent packages, which could each technically have their own license, should AT&T decide to do so I suppose, and the license is stated at the top of every source file, though I have only checked a few. Perhaps a LICENSE file could be created indicating this information rather than just stating EPL 1.0? Though it makes more sense to me to have a single LICENSE file and have the source files point to that location rather than all of them declare what the license actually is, to make it easier to change. |
|
The Fish project does not have a LICENSE file. The Elvish project does. Those are the other shell projects I've contributed to. I am not a lawyer so I have no idea what the right thing to do here is. We can certainly, and probably should, create a LICENSE file that describes which portions of the code are under which licenses. This may be difficult because parts of the code (e.g., src/libbz/crctable.c) are from other projects without an explicit license mentioned in the file but which do have a LICENSE file. While other pieces of code put the license in each source file. And, of course, there may be other variations I haven't noticed. |
|
These files have different licenses:
|
|
Although there are some portions of code which use different licenses, this project as a whole was released under EPL-1.0. I think it should be safe to put EPL-1.0 text in the LICENSE file. |
License text has been taken from https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html Resolves: #21
src/cmd/ksh93/sh/name.c: - Correct the check for when a function is currently running to fix a segmentation fault that occurred when a POSIX function tries to unset itself while it is running. This bug fix was backported from ksh93v-. src/cmd/ksh93/sh/xec.c: - If a function tries to unset itself, unset the function with '_nv_unset(np, NV_RDONLY)' to fix a silent failure. This fix was also backported from ksh93v-. src/cmd/ksh93/tests/functions.sh: - Add four regression tests for when a function unsets itself. Resolves att#21
The fix in sh/xec.c, which was backported from the ksh 93v- beta to delay the actual removal of a running function that unsets itself, caused a segfault in the variables.sh regression tests (see att#23). src/cmd/ksh93/sh/xec.c: - Comment out the backported code pending a correct fix for att#21. Now both types of functions silently fail to unset themselves (unless they're discipline functions). src/cmd/ksh93/tests/functions.sh: - Disable regression tests checking that the function was actually unset, pending a correct fix for att#21. Resolves: att#23 Reopens: att#21
Applying the fix for 'unset -f' exposed a crashing bug in lookup() in sh/nvdisc.c, which is the function for looking up discipline functions. This is what caused tests/variables.sh to crash. Ref.: ksh93#23 (comment) src/cmd/ksh93/sh/nvdisc.c: lookup(): - To avoid segfault, check that the function pointer nq->nvalue.rp is actually set before checking if nq->nvalue.rp->running==1. src/cmd/ksh93/sh/xec.c, src/cmd/ksh93/tests/functions.sh: - Uncomment the 'unset -f' fix from b7932e8. Resolves att#21 (again).
The software is missing a license. Please add one by committing a file to the root of your repo titled LICENSE. See https://github.com/blog/1530-choosing-an-open-source-license if you need help choosing a license.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: