Skip to content
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

src/GPL-2.0-with-*: Remove internal byte-order-mark #411

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 12, 2017

Conversation

wking
Copy link
Contributor

@wking wking commented Jun 1, 2017

Generated with:

$ sed -i 's/\xef\xbb\xbf//' $(git ls-tree -r --name-only HEAD)

because we don't a BOM for UTF-8. And even if we did need a BOM, it would be at the beginning of the file, and not in the middle after a <p> tag.

Generated with:

  $ sed -i 's/\xef\xbb\xbf//' $(git ls-tree -r --name-only HEAD)

because we don't a BOM for UTF-8 [1].  And even if we did need a BOM,
it would be at the beginning of the file, and not in the middle after
a <p> tag.

[1]: http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#bom5
@jlovejoy
Copy link
Member

As a policy, we won't change deprecated licenses after the point at which it was deprecated. Can you please close this?

@wking
Copy link
Contributor Author

wking commented Sep 14, 2017 via email

@bradleeedmondson
Copy link
Contributor

bradleeedmondson commented Sep 14, 2017 via email

@wking
Copy link
Contributor Author

wking commented Sep 14, 2017 via email

@goneall
Copy link
Member

goneall commented Sep 14, 2017

Agree with @wking comments on the BOM - It shouldn't affect the matching and is probably a safe merge. On the legal call, we just didn't spend much time on this PR since it was a deprecated license. @wking if you feel strongly that this should be accepted, we can raise it again to the legal group with the additional technical information / background. If you don't feel strongly, we can just close the PR.

@wking
Copy link
Contributor Author

wking commented Sep 14, 2017 via email

@jlovejoy
Copy link
Member

as per @goneall comment that we didn't spend much time on this on the call and I don't think it's worth spending much time on it beyond that - shall I just merge this pull request?
In spite of the general guideline of not messing about with deprecated licenses (to avoid the appearance of changing the past and for practical time/effort/value reasons), seems like this is benign either way.

@wking
Copy link
Contributor Author

wking commented Sep 14, 2017 via email

@bradleeedmondson
Copy link
Contributor

I think it would be useful to have a corpus of examples and a test suite
to confirm continued matching [1] as the spec, license source format,
and tooling evolve

I believe @goneall does this for releases of the license list and has done this as we touch all this XML (offline IIRC), but AFAIK it's not in any repo yet. Others have asked this as too, and I've called for this in the form of continuous integration, but I don't believe it's automated yet. But that could be a good target after completing the XML conversion and adding the new licenses for the next release.

@wking
Copy link
Contributor Author

wking commented Sep 14, 2017 via email

@goneall
Copy link
Member

goneall commented Sep 15, 2017

The code that generates the website and license data for the license data output is located here: https://github.com/spdx/tools/blob/master/src/org/spdx/tools/LicenseRDFAGenerator.java
It contains a few checks and tests. The method checkText looks for invalid characters and produces a warning. It also checks for duplicate licenses. I am also updating the tool to compare each license text against a file containing text representing that license (I'm careful not to use the work canonical since some licenses have debates as to what the canonical license is). The implementation of this test is very straight forward as it just calls the license text equivalent utility method comparing the text and making sure it passes. I plan to use the previous license list text prior to the XML conversion - I'm sure this will catch differences that will need to be resolved. I do plan on automating quite a few of these items using travis, but this not be done immediately.

Feel free to suggest other checks.

@bradleeedmondson bradleeedmondson merged commit a581d45 into spdx:master Oct 12, 2017
@wking wking deleted the remove-byte-order-mark branch October 12, 2017 18:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants