Skip to content

License compatibility and suggesting outbound#77

Description

@hesa

In the source code, one can read "We need to run flict as subprocess as usage as library is too complicated"..... and, as the main author, I agree 馃挴. I appreciate you use the word "complicated" :)

Flict relies on OSADL's license matrix, which is dealing with snippets. There are other license resources to use than just OSADL's (e.g. https://github.com/osslab-pku/RecLicense, https://gitlab.com/hermine-project/hermine-data and the work in progress https://gitlab.com/automated-foss-license-compliance/) for other use cases (than snippets).

There is a new tool, https://github.com/hesa/licomp-toolkit, which wraps these resources and takes into concern things like:

  • how do you provide your software to your customer (REST api, binary, web ui, ....)?
  • how you use your software (link to it, stand-alone tool ...)?
  • have you modified the component?

So I think a switch to using licomp-toolkit both will be easier and more flexible.

Let's go back to looking at your tool. The functions (in https://github.com/OpenRailAssociation/compliance-assistant/blob/main/complassist/_flict.py) I find are:

  • flict_simplify_license
  • flict_simplify_license_list
  • flict_outbound_candidate

Are these your "only" use of flict?

Is there any other feature you would like to see in a tool?

If you would consider switching to licomp-toolkit, which I strongly suggest, I will of course help you out.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions