|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | How come no revision has been approved for this page? Who has control to do that? -mdc | | How come no revision has been approved for this page? Who has control to do that? -mdc |
| | | | |
| − | == licensecheck report ==
| + | The review of Chromium has moved to [[Review:Chromium-REV-ID-1]]. --[[User:Adfeno|Adfeno]] ([[User talk:Adfeno|talk]]) 13:24, 16 February 2019 (EST) |
| − | | |
| − | This is a continuation of [http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg00001.html].
| |
| − | | |
| − | To generate the report, do:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <pre style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
| |
| − | git clone --depth 1 "https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git" "chromium"
| |
| − | cd "chromium"
| |
| − | licensecheck -c '.*' -r * > "../licensecheck_chromium.txt"
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | This report is based on commit <code>df850bbd0966147f0857369252da8a6fc6c18253</code> and was generated with <code>licensecheck</code> from <code>devscripts</code> package version <code>2.14.1ubuntu0.1</code>, available in the official Trisquel repositories, and as the version string implies, provided directly by Trisquel's upstream --- because no Trisquel-specific patches where made).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also see my message in [http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg00014.html] to question whether these shorter-than-they-should license notices are really applicable.
| |
| − | | |
| − | One must note that the report is too heavy to be put anywhere in an online storage, so I prefer to distribute it through torrent, with DHT (no trackers), the magnet link is [magnet:?xt=urn:btih:916fd8a45158ff660811a06beb6c3ec258a3b50e&dn=licensecheck%5Fchromium.txt].
| |
| − | --[[User:Adfeno|Adfeno]] ([[User talk:Adfeno|talk]]) 11:54, 25 November 2017 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | The following paths are under BSD-3-Clause modified by W3C (the license text is the same, just adding the name of W3C): | |
| − | | |
| − | <pre style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
| |
| − | third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/wpt/wpt/LICENSE.md
| |
| − | third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/wpt/wpt/tools/wptserve/LICENSE
| |
| − | third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/resources/LICENSE
| |
| − | third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/LICENSE.md
| |
| − | third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/2dcontext/tools/LICENSE.txt
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The following paths are under BSD-4-Clause (the original one, which has the advertisement clause):
| |
| − | | |
| − | <pre style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
| |
| − | native_client_sdk/src/libraries/third_party/newlib-extras/netinet/tcp.h
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | As for the rest, licensecheck claims them to be all free/libre software licenses. However, this evaluation isn't over yet. Here are the things that I think need be done (of course we can remove or add items if there is proof, but as a non-experienced evaluator, this is the list I have right now):
| |
| − | | |
| − | * See what are the licenses of the paths whose lines end with "UNKNOWN", and what files are the source of the paths whose lines end with "GENERATED FILE".
| |
| − | * Do license check with a different version of licensecheck (different than the one [[User:Adfeno|Adfeno]] described) or with a different tool. This is important because the first licensecheck output displayed some incorrect results. However, due to the amount of bundling and the quantity of source files, [[User:Adfeno|Adfeno]] only re-checked the paths described in this message.
| |
| − | * Investigate [http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-12/msg00008.html].
| |
| − | ** Morever, test if the build result follows the licenses and provides complete corresponding source of the bundles.
| |
| − | * Since they choose to bundle stuff, see if the LGPL, MPL, and Ms-PL parts are modified compared to their originals. These checks will probably require downloading a full clone of the repository (this means also removing <code>--depth 1</code>) and a download of the originals. Be very specific to version/release numbers and revisions, remember to get the specific revision of Chromium that is being evaluated, and to try to find information about the exact version/release and commits of the LGPL, MPL and Ms-PL parts. If the modifications are local to Chromium, then it might require the resulting work to be copylefted.
| |
| − | * See if the GPL parts are indeed important for building or running the software.
| |
| − | * Investigate if the type of linking (static, dynamic, shared, etc.) that Chromium does (if it does such link) to the parts under GPL, LGPL, MPL, Ms-PL requires a license change.
| |
| − | * Attempt to download the source files using the method described in Chromium's website, and do the check based on that.--[[User:Adfeno|Adfeno]] ([[User talk:Adfeno|talk]]) 16:39, 26 January 2018 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : As far as I can see, there's no need to download the source files using the method described in Chromium's website, it does exactly what we just did. --[[User:Adfeno|Adfeno]] ([[User talk:Adfeno|talk]]) 19:28, 7 March 2018 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == On licensecheck ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | If you don't use Trisquel, I've put the devscripts sources from the 2.16.2ubuntu package [http://coinsh.red/p/devscripts.tar.xz here], and licensecheck itself [http://coinsh.red/p/licensecheck.pl here], for convenience.
| |
| − | --[[User:Jadedctrl|Jadedctrl]] ([[User talk:Jadedctrl|talk]]) 20:47, 15 January 2018 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == FSD Script Aid report ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | This report is still mostly in raw form.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I simply used <code>grep</code> and an <code>awk</code> script to find which files are under the license in the nearest "LICENSE file" (the notices in some files make it easy to use <code>grep</code> to find each file that has these notices) and remove the files which have these notices and which don't have the JS-related flags set to 1. Morever, as far as I know, some files even though they have the JS-related flag set to 1, they aren't actually executed by a browser or read by a web server, this is the case for <code>.c</code>, <code>.cc</code>, <code>.cpp</code>, <code>.gn</code>, <code>.gni</code>, <code>.h</code>, <code>.hpp</code>, <code>.java</code>, <code>.md</code> and <code>.mojom</code> files.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I also removed binary files that are actually multimedia except text (known image, video and audio formats).
| |
| − | | |
| − | The magnet link for the report is [magnet:?xt=urn:btih:8b7a458a49d8dc58cb4ba39511450ee6d661a893&dn=chromium.csv].
| |
