Date   

Joining technical team of SPDX

bhavys@iitk.ac.in <bhavys@...>
 

Hello everyone,

i am interested for working with the technical team of SPDX. The GSoC project 'SPDX Document Generator for projects using SPDXIDs' seems very interesting to me. I have got the myself familiar with the working of the python-tools by running it on my laptop and have made some PRs to the easy beginner issues on github of spdx/tools-python.

I want to begin contributing towards the project, could you guide me to begin making some good contributions to SPDX and the project. I have joined the general and technical mailing list.

Thanks

Bhavy

 


On 2019-03-01 20:07, Manbeck, Jack via Lists.Spdx.Org wrote:

Just echoing what Jilayne said. If you can give us an idea of where your interest lie participation wise, after reading about the work groups on the site,  we can guide you.  Or feel free to ask questions about them.

Jack


-----Original Message-----
From: spdx@... [mailto:spdx@...] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 11:09 PM
To: SPDX-general
Cc: bhavys@...
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [spdx] Newcomer introduction

Hi Bhavy,

Welcome! I have just approved your message, as it appears you have not joined the mailing list.  Can you please do so?  We actually have 4 mailing lists - this general one and one for each sub-team: tech, legal, and outreach. I'm not sure which is appropriate for you, but there is a description of each and how to join here: https://spdx.org/participate.

Thanks,
Jilayne
SPDX legal co-lead

On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:42 AM, bhavys@... wrote:

Hello everyone,
I got to know about Spdx from a friend and I found the organisation's idea of merging multiple licences into one file for easy utility very interesting.
I would like to contribute to the organisation and have already opened minor PRs on github of spdx. Could you guide me where to begin.
Thanks
Bhavy








Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [spdx] Newcomer introduction

Manbeck, Jack
 

Just echoing what Jilayne said. If you can give us an idea of where your interest lie participation wise, after reading about the work groups on the site, we can guide you. Or feel free to ask questions about them.

Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: spdx@... [mailto:spdx@...] On Behalf Of J Lovejoy
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 11:09 PM
To: SPDX-general
Cc: bhavys@...
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [spdx] Newcomer introduction

Hi Bhavy,

Welcome! I have just approved your message, as it appears you have not joined the mailing list. Can you please do so? We actually have 4 mailing lists - this general one and one for each sub-team: tech, legal, and outreach. I’m not sure which is appropriate for you, but there is a description of each and how to join here: https://spdx.org/participate.

Thanks,
Jilayne
SPDX legal co-lead

On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:42 AM, bhavys@... wrote:

Hello everyone,
I got to know about Spdx from a friend and I found the organisation's idea of merging multiple licences into one file for easy utility very interesting.
I would like to contribute to the organisation and have already opened minor PRs on github of spdx. Could you guide me where to begin.
Thanks
Bhavy


Re: Newcomer introduction

J Lovejoy
 

Hi Bhavy,

Welcome! I have just approved your message, as it appears you have not joined the mailing list. Can you please do so? We actually have 4 mailing lists - this general one and one for each sub-team: tech, legal, and outreach. I’m not sure which is appropriate for you, but there is a description of each and how to join here: https://spdx.org/participate.

Thanks,
Jilayne
SPDX legal co-lead

On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:42 AM, bhavys@... wrote:

Hello everyone,
I got to know about Spdx from a friend and I found the organisation's idea of merging multiple licences into one file for easy utility very interesting.
I would like to contribute to the organisation and have already opened minor PRs on github of spdx. Could you guide me where to begin.
Thanks
Bhavy


Newcomer introduction

bhavys@...
 

Hello everyone,
I got to know about Spdx from a friend and I found the organisation's idea of merging multiple licences into one file for easy utility very interesting.
I would like to contribute to the organisation and have already opened minor PRs on github of spdx. Could you guide me where to begin.
Thanks
Bhavy


Seeking public comments for the OpenChain Specification version 2.0

Mark Gisi
 

We are seeking public comments for the next version of OpenChain Specification.

 

For those new to the OpenChain Specification  - The OpenChain project developed a specification that defines a core set of requirements that a high quality Open Source Compliance program is expected to satisfy.  Although specification provides a minimum set of “must have” requirements, a great deal of flexibility is given on how an organization can implement them.

 

We have recently completed the last round of feedback from the OpenChain community and the spec draft is now being circulated more broadly for public comments which concludes on March 22nd. The current draft is available at:

   https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/openchainspec-2.0.draft.pdf  

past readers of the spec might find the marked up version useful:

   https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/openchain/OpenChainSpec-2.0.draft.MarkUp.pdf       

A high level summary of the changes made over the current version (1.2) can be found on page 3.

 

You can send feedback via:

·       the Mailing list: Openchain-specification@...;

·       the issues wiki: https://github.com/OpenChain-Project/Specification/issues; or

·       replying to me directly if you wish to remain anonymous (mark.gisi@...)

 

To obtain a better understanding of the goals and the context in which the Specification was developed before providing feedback, you can review the following FAQ list:

              https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/openchain/specification-questions-and-answers

 

We look forward to your feedback.

 

best,

Mark

 

Mark Gisi | Wind River | Director, IP & Open Source

Tel (510) 749-2016 | Fax (510) 749-4552

 


Re: SPDX Feb General Meeting Minutes

Phil Odence
 

Thanks for the updates.

 

From: "spdx@..." <spdx@...> on behalf of "kstewart@..." <kstewart@...>
Reply-To: "spdx@..." <spdx@...>
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 12:36 PM
To: "spdx@..." <spdx@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] SPDX Feb General Meeting Minutes

 

Hi Phil,

    I've gone in and updated the tech section to put links into some of the 

items we discussed and added details of Asia SPDX tech call.    

Please let me know if you want me to revert.

 

Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary[edit]

·         Tools

·         Applying to participate in GSoC for 2019

·         Variety of proposals on Wiki: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/GSOC/GSOC_ProjectIdeas

·         We’ll hear back end of Feb 26 if we are selected.

·         tools-golang

·         Steve Winslow has contributed new Go libraries to SPDX to support generating SPDX documents see: https://github.com/spdx/tools-golang

·         He also created a tool to scan the kernel looking for SPDXIDs that Kate used for her talk at LCA to get latest status of the Kernel.

·         Go Steve!

·         Specification

·         Discussing Mark Atwood's Idea for alternative name spaces for companies licenses that are not open source.

·         Spec can handle via "LicenseRef-"

·         What guidance do we provide?

·         Unblocking contributions to 2.2

·         Kate is working with Thomas to unblock contributions to 2.2 (switch master over to 2.2 from 2.1.1)

·         We will be starting to take pull requests into 2.2 spec, for features approved, please assign issue to yourself if you want to write up the feature.

·         Focus for next few months

·         Started a tech call in Asia friendly time

·         Call will be on 2nd Tuesday of each month 10am Japan/12pm Australia (and 5pm PST Monday) on https://www.uberconference.com/SPDXTeam

·         First topic will be SPDX-lite discussion that's started in the OpenChain workgroup.


Thanks, Kate

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 11:02 AM Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> wrote:

https://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2019-02-07

 

For techies, interesting discussion of custom license name space proposal. I hope my non-techie notes capture the essence.

 

Phil

 

General Meeting/Minutes/2019-02-07

< General Meeting‎ | Minutes

·         Attendance: 10

·         Lead by Phil Odence

·         Minutes of Jan meeting approved 

 

Contents

 [hide

·         1 Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary

·         2 Legal Team Report - Jilayne

·         3 Outreach Team Report - Jack

·         4 Cross Functions

·         5 Attendees

Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary[edit]

·         Tools

·         SoC in again

·         Variety of proposals on Wiki

·         We’ll hear back end of Feb

·         Steve W 

·         created a tool to scan the kernel looking for SPDX

·         Contributed Go libraries

·         Go Steve

·         Specification

·         Discussing Marks Idea for alternative name spaces

·         Spec can handle

·         What guidance do we provide?

·         Starting to take pull requests into 2.2 spec

·         Focus for next few months

·         Started a tech call in Asia friendly 

Legal Team Report - Jilayne[edit]

·         License List

·         New process and links posted

·         Published policy says advocates need to stay engaged or requests may drop off the radar

·         GitHub process seems like a great way to handle requests

·         Need work outside the call 

 

Outreach Team Report - Jack[edit]

·         LinuxCon Aussie Presentation

·         Included Stat1/3 of files in Kernel have SPDX in them

·         Great momentum

·         Panel at FOSDEM on OSS Compliance tooling

·         Alexios attended

·         Lots or proposals on tools, so organizers turned into a panel w/ Bradley K moderating

·         Theme was need for interoperatblity

·         Video will be published

·         Alexios also mentioned that at recent copyleft conference, SPDX came up in every talk

·         Website

·         Looking into status of move to Wordpress with LF

·         Request a new license page has been directed to GitHub repo

·         Need an Outreach reboot

Cross Functions[edit]

·         Alternate name space

·         Basics

·         Many companies have source available non-OSS licenses

·         Would be good for companies to be able to have standard local names

·         Proposal is to use DNS

·         Addresses issues with flat, first come first served

·         DNS will be around for a long time

·         Allows companies to self-assign

·         Internationalized by default

·         Immediately readable

·         Leading dot clearly differentiates from SPDX standard names

·         Challenges

·         Doesn’t cary text

·         Companies’ names may change through M&A and may lose domains in the process

·         How to ensure that a company doesn’t change license text 

·         Sentiment is in favor of

·         Retain “License Ref” prefix

·         Standardize on place to log license data

·         In a one-license SPDX doc

·         Mark will mock up with one of the Amazon licenses, collaborating with Kate

 

Attendees[edit]

·         Phil Odence, Black Duck/Synopsys

·         Kate Stewart, Linux Foundation

·         Mark Atwood, Amazon

·         Jilayne Lovejoy

·         Gary O’Neall, SourceAuditor

·         Dennis Clark, NexB

·         Alexios Zavras, Intel

·         Jack Manbeck, TI

·         Mark Baushke, Juniper

·         David Ryan

 


Re: SPDX Feb General Meeting Minutes

Kate Stewart
 

Hi Phil,
    I've gone in and updated the tech section to put links into some of the 
items we discussed and added details of Asia SPDX tech call.    
Please let me know if you want me to revert.

Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary[edit]

  • Tools
    • Applying to participate in GSoC for 2019
    • tools-golang
      • Steve Winslow has contributed new Go libraries to SPDX to support generating SPDX documents see: https://github.com/spdx/tools-golang
      • He also created a tool to scan the kernel looking for SPDXIDs that Kate used for her talk at LCA to get latest status of the Kernel.
      • Go Steve!
  • Specification
    • Discussing Mark Atwood's Idea for alternative name spaces for companies licenses that are not open source.
      • Spec can handle via "LicenseRef-"
      • What guidance do we provide?
    • Unblocking contributions to 2.2
      • Kate is working with Thomas to unblock contributions to 2.2 (switch master over to 2.2 from 2.1.1)
      • We will be starting to take pull requests into 2.2 spec, for features approved, please assign issue to yourself if you want to write up the feature.
      • Focus for next few months
  • Started a tech call in Asia friendly time
    • Call will be on 2nd Tuesday of each month 10am Japan/12pm Australia (and 5pm PST Monday) on https://www.uberconference.com/SPDXTeam
    • First topic will be SPDX-lite discussion that's started in the OpenChain workgroup.

Thanks, Kate


On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 11:02 AM Phil Odence <phil.odence@...> wrote:

https://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2019-02-07

 

For techies, interesting discussion of custom license name space proposal. I hope my non-techie notes capture the essence.

 

Phil

 

General Meeting/Minutes/2019-02-07

< General Meeting‎ | Minutes

·         Attendance: 10

·         Lead by Phil Odence

·         Minutes of Jan meeting approved 

 

Contents

 [hide

·         1 Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary

·         2 Legal Team Report - Jilayne

·         3 Outreach Team Report - Jack

·         4 Cross Functions

·         5 Attendees

Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary[edit]

·         Tools

·         SoC in again

·         Variety of proposals on Wiki

·         We’ll hear back end of Feb

·         Steve W 

·         created a tool to scan the kernel looking for SPDX

·         Contributed Go libraries

·         Go Steve

·         Specification

·         Discussing Marks Idea for alternative name spaces

·         Spec can handle

·         What guidance do we provide?

·         Starting to take pull requests into 2.2 spec

·         Focus for next few months

·         Started a tech call in Asia friendly 

Legal Team Report - Jilayne[edit]

·         License List

·         New process and links posted

·         Published policy says advocates need to stay engaged or requests may drop off the radar

·         GitHub process seems like a great way to handle requests

·         Need work outside the call 

 

Outreach Team Report - Jack[edit]

·         LinuxCon Aussie Presentation

·         Included Stat1/3 of files in Kernel have SPDX in them

·         Great momentum

·         Panel at FOSDEM on OSS Compliance tooling

·         Alexios attended

·         Lots or proposals on tools, so organizers turned into a panel w/ Bradley K moderating

·         Theme was need for interoperatblity

·         Video will be published

·         Alexios also mentioned that at recent copyleft conference, SPDX came up in every talk

·         Website

·         Looking into status of move to Wordpress with LF

·         Request a new license page has been directed to GitHub repo

·         Need an Outreach reboot

Cross Functions[edit]

·         Alternate name space

·         Basics

·         Many companies have source available non-OSS licenses

·         Would be good for companies to be able to have standard local names

·         Proposal is to use DNS

·         Addresses issues with flat, first come first served

·         DNS will be around for a long time

·         Allows companies to self-assign

·         Internationalized by default

·         Immediately readable

·         Leading dot clearly differentiates from SPDX standard names

·         Challenges

·         Doesn’t cary text

·         Companies’ names may change through M&A and may lose domains in the process

·         How to ensure that a company doesn’t change license text 

·         Sentiment is in favor of

·         Retain “License Ref” prefix

·         Standardize on place to log license data

·         In a one-license SPDX doc

·         Mark will mock up with one of the Amazon licenses, collaborating with Kate

 

Attendees[edit]

·         Phil Odence, Black Duck/Synopsys

·         Kate Stewart, Linux Foundation

·         Mark Atwood, Amazon

·         Jilayne Lovejoy

·         Gary O’Neall, SourceAuditor

·         Dennis Clark, NexB

·         Alexios Zavras, Intel

·         Jack Manbeck, TI

·         Mark Baushke, Juniper

·         David Ryan

 


SPDX Feb General Meeting Minutes

Phil Odence
 

https://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2019-02-07

 

For techies, interesting discussion of custom license name space proposal. I hope my non-techie notes capture the essence.

 

Phil

 

General Meeting/Minutes/2019-02-07

< General Meeting‎ | Minutes

·         Attendance: 10

·         Lead by Phil Odence

·         Minutes of Jan meeting approved 

 

Contents

 [hide

·         1 Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary

·         2 Legal Team Report - Jilayne

·         3 Outreach Team Report - Jack

·         4 Cross Functions

·         5 Attendees

Tech Team Report - Kate/Gary[edit]

·         Tools

·         SoC in again

·         Variety of proposals on Wiki

·         We’ll hear back end of Feb

·         Steve W 

·         created a tool to scan the kernel looking for SPDX

·         Contributed Go libraries

·         Go Steve

·         Specification

·         Discussing Marks Idea for alternative name spaces

·         Spec can handle

·         What guidance do we provide?

·         Starting to take pull requests into 2.2 spec

·         Focus for next few months

·         Started a tech call in Asia friendly 

Legal Team Report - Jilayne[edit]

·         License List

·         New process and links posted

·         Published policy says advocates need to stay engaged or requests may drop off the radar

·         GitHub process seems like a great way to handle requests

·         Need work outside the call 

 

Outreach Team Report - Jack[edit]

·         LinuxCon Aussie Presentation

·         Included Stat1/3 of files in Kernel have SPDX in them

·         Great momentum

·         Panel at FOSDEM on OSS Compliance tooling

·         Alexios attended

·         Lots or proposals on tools, so organizers turned into a panel w/ Bradley K moderating

·         Theme was need for interoperatblity

·         Video will be published

·         Alexios also mentioned that at recent copyleft conference, SPDX came up in every talk

·         Website

·         Looking into status of move to Wordpress with LF

·         Request a new license page has been directed to GitHub repo

·         Need an Outreach reboot

Cross Functions[edit]

·         Alternate name space

·         Basics

·         Many companies have source available non-OSS licenses

·         Would be good for companies to be able to have standard local names

·         Proposal is to use DNS

·         Addresses issues with flat, first come first served

·         DNS will be around for a long time

·         Allows companies to self-assign

·         Internationalized by default

·         Immediately readable

·         Leading dot clearly differentiates from SPDX standard names

·         Challenges

·         Doesn’t cary text

·         Companies’ names may change through M&A and may lose domains in the process

·         How to ensure that a company doesn’t change license text 

·         Sentiment is in favor of

·         Retain “License Ref” prefix

·         Standardize on place to log license data

·         In a one-license SPDX doc

·         Mark will mock up with one of the Amazon licenses, collaborating with Kate

 

Attendees[edit]

·         Phil Odence, Black Duck/Synopsys

·         Kate Stewart, Linux Foundation

·         Mark Atwood, Amazon

·         Jilayne Lovejoy

·         Gary O’Neall, SourceAuditor

·         Dennis Clark, NexB

·         Alexios Zavras, Intel

·         Jack Manbeck, TI

·         Mark Baushke, Juniper

·         David Ryan

 


Feb 7 SPDX General Meeting Reminder

Phil Odence
 

GENERAL MEETING

 

Meeting Time: Thurs, Feb 7, 8am PST / 10 am CST / 11am EST / 15:00 UTC. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html


Conf call dial-in:

New dial in number: 415-881-1586

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at: 
http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam

 

Administrative Agenda

Attendance

Minutes Approval: https://wiki.spdx.org/view/General_Meeting/Minutes/2019-01-03

 

Technical Team Report – Kate/Gary

 

Legal Team Report – Jilayne

 

Outreach Team Report – Jack

 

Any Cross Functional Issues –All

 

 

L. Philip Odence
General Manager, Black Duck On-Demand
Synopsys Software Integrity Group, Burlington, MA
O: +1.781.313.6655
| M: +1.781.258.9502


banner

L. Philip Odence
General Manager, Black Duck On-Demand
Synopsys Software Integrity Group
800 District Avenue, Suite 101, Burlington, MA 01803-5061
W: +1.781.313.6801; M: +1.781.258.9502

www.blackducksoftware.com  

 

 


Re: Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

Kate Stewart
 



On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:32 PM Dan Kegel <dank@...> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:30 PM Jeremiah C. Foster <jfoster@...> wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, copyright has to be a string because it has to be legible by humans. This means you can likely grep through source code as scancode does with a fair degree of confidence and use 'strings' on binaries.
>
> Using DEP-5 and Debian Copyright files where you can should also be sufficient for due diligence in most jurisdictions, but I can't point to any legal precedent as evidence.
>
> SPDX helps by creating a framework for human and machine readable documentation of your work, but you'll still need to scan code for copyright.
>
> Binaries likely require a bit of reverse engineering.

Yes, absolutely.

SPDX's set of standard licenses and ids (and scancode's somewhat
expanded similar set) are great for stating license info succinctly.

scancode is great at collecting the info that should go into the
debian copyright file.

My goal for this iteration at our licensing process was to automate
collection of license info for the shared libraries our binary uses.

Hi Dan,
    Am not sure what you're using for a build infrastructure, but there
are some solutions emerging in Yocto that may be relevant, as well
as the other projects that Philippe outlines.    

 I checked with Richard and he confirms that
" The Yocto Project already builds everything with debug symbols which
get linked and separated into separate packages. It already uses
dwarfsrcfiles to generate a list of source code files which went into
creating a given binary.

The Project also has license information for each software recipe it
builds.

There are some work in progress patches, not quite ready to merge yet
but working which combine these two pieces of information, along with
scanning the source files for SPDX headers to give information about
the possible license a binary may be under."

So if you're using Yocto for your builds, and want to help get with the development
of this capability available faster,  rather than create a stand-alone tool feel free to 
reach out to Richard (on cc). 

Thanks, Kate


Re: Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

Philippe Ombredanne
 

Hi Dan:
You are asking a simple question for which is there is no simple
answer: this is not yet a solved problem and there is no easy button
to press.
Hence the long answer.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:20 PM Dan Kegel <dank@...> wrote:

Hi all!

Coming up with a list of licenses a binary is bound by is
a mind-boggling task that I avoid whenever possible.
I've been watching spdx and friends from afar for some time
in hopes they will help.

Recently I was asked to write a stateless, standalone tool that takes
a path to a
dynamically linked linux binary, and outputs an approximate list of licenses
the shared libraries it uses are bound by. Here's my current draft:
https://github.com/Oblong/obs/blob/master/ob-list-licenses

Roughly, it uses ldd and dpkg-query to locate copyright files
for all shared libraries it references, and then either
just outputs the License: values for DEP-5 copyright files,
or uses scancode to detect them for non-DEP-5 copyright files.

Now I'm plugging along, adding optional heuristics like
"XXX of dependencies can be filtered out (because I'm only interested
in the bits pulled in via dynamic linking)"
where XXX is "files: debian/*" and "files: doc/*"

Am I duplicating work? I looked at fossology, but its complexity kind
of disqualifies it
(nothing about it seems standalone or stateless).
Since you are trying to figure out the license of a shared object (aka
library, or DLL) you need to know the license of the files that are
compiled/linked in it.
And quite rightly, using Debian copyright files will help you find out
the license of the source files. So will a ScanCode scan (and it will
also look in the binaries and report anything that can be found
there).

But that would not help you find out which set of source files are
baked in that shared object and what is the effective license of the
shared object in many cases (short of applying some extra heuristics
or work on top).

The most common problem is when a package provides a library and a
command line too/utilities and each use a different license (typically
the library is LGPL and the command line utilities are GPL). There are
also other files such as build scripts, test files, documentation,
tools, etc that may use several other licenses. These are not linked
in the shared library and therefore would need to be parsed out to
properly conclude what is the effective shared object license.

As an example libcap-ng (one of the package you listed) is both small
and typical of many Linux libraries licensing and code organization
and the issues that come up when you are trying to find which license
applies to what.

- It is overall under LGPL-2.1 or later and in particular its library
is using this license [1] but its RPM spec file (libcap-ng.spec) is
not up to date and refers to an LGPL-2.0+ instead of a 2.1 version.
- Command line utilities are under GPL 2.0 [2]
- Some build scripts are MIT-licensed (configure.ac), or use other
similar licenses (INSTALL is FSFAP) or are GPL- or LGPL-licensed
(Makefile.am)
- The root directory contains a copy of the GPL 2 (COPYING) and LGPL
2.1 (COPYING.LIB) and another copy of the LGPL (LICENSE). But there
are no indication of which one applies to what except for the not
entirely correct spec file mentioned above.
- The corresponding Debian copyright file [3] is not structured to be
machine readable yet . Yet it provides a bit more information: the top
level license is properly reported as an LGPL-2.1 or later. And there
is a mention of the GPL-2.0-licensed build scripts and command line
utilities. But it also introduces a new GPL-3.0 license for the Debian
packaging removing some clarity to the licensing documentation.

The overall licensing is pretty clear when you are used to this after
a quick review (and the help of a ScanCode scan of course ;)): the
shared library license is LGPL-2.1-or-later and nothing else but
things are mighty difficult to automate to come to the same correct
conclusion.

If you could know which exact files are included in the shared
object/library, you could get back to these source files to get the
licensing information.
For this there are a few ways to go:
1. trace which files are compiled and linked the DLL
2. obtain that information from a DB or from a tool (without tracing)

1. For the tracing part
1.1- in the world of ELFs, you could use a debug build and parse out
debug symbols to get back the list of actual source files that are
based in that executable. There is contributed code in scancode [4] to
extract DWARF debug symbols and get the corresponding source code file
paths but that has not been fully integrated yet in the main tool.

1.2- you could trace the build such that you know exactly which files
are used and included in the .so. I maintain TraceCode for this [5]
and quartermaster [6] is also doing similar things (with different
approaches). TraceCode works from an strace system calls trace of an
unmodified/uninstrumented build to recreate/reverse engineer a build
graph as it happens in user space. This is not a magically automated
solution though and results require review and interpretation. But it
works not too badly on single libraries.

2. To obtain the information without tracing:
Some tool or database could have told which files are in the library
and which files are in the CLI utilities and which are build scripts
in a structured way. This is what are called facets [7] in scancode
which is a concept borrowed from ClearlyDefined [8]. But being able to
define facets and having facets defined is not the same. Scancode can
report facets for each file if you tell it. But it does not have yet
the ability to infer facets from the code such as for instance
assigning "Makefile.am" to a development/build scripts facets. Working
together on this would go a long way. There are a few Scancode pending
tickets on this [9] [10].
As for ClearlyDefined, our goal (I contribute to the project) is to
have facets possibly contributed as part of the curation and review
process. And any enhancement to Scancode to infer facets would also
benefit ClearlyDefined and would likely be of a great help to Debian
to improve copyright files that are not yet machine readable too.

[1] https://github.com/stevegrubb/libcap-ng/blob/master/libcap-ng.spec#L7
[2] https://github.com/stevegrubb/libcap-ng/blob/master/libcap-ng.spec#L57
[3] https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/libc/libcap-ng/libcap-ng_0.7.7-3_copyright
[4] https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit-contrib/tree/develop/src/compiledcode
[5] https://github.com/nexB/tracecode-toolkit
[6] https://github.com/QMSTR/qmstr
[7] https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/develop/src/summarycode/facet.py#L58
[8] https://clearlydefined.io/
[9] https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/issues/1036
[10] https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/issues/377
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

+1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@...
ScanCode maintainer


SPDX General Meeting 2018 (replacement)

Phil Odence
 

When: Occurs every month on the first Thursday of the month from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM effective 8/2/2018 until 1/1/2020. (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Where: Bridge info enclosed

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

I’m extending this recurring meeting to run through 2019. Please accept so it is updated on your calendar, however no need to send a response to me.



New dial in number: 415-881-1586

No PIN needed

The weblink for screenshare will stay the same at:
http://uberconference.com/SPDXTeam



MEETING MINUTES FOR REVIEW: http://spdx.org/wiki/meeting-minutes-and-decisions



Re: Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

Dan Kegel
 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:30 PM Jeremiah C. Foster <jfoster@...> wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, copyright has to be a string because it has to be legible by humans. This means you can likely grep through source code as scancode does with a fair degree of confidence and use 'strings' on binaries.

Using DEP-5 and Debian Copyright files where you can should also be sufficient for due diligence in most jurisdictions, but I can't point to any legal precedent as evidence.

SPDX helps by creating a framework for human and machine readable documentation of your work, but you'll still need to scan code for copyright.

Binaries likely require a bit of reverse engineering.
Yes, absolutely.

SPDX's set of standard licenses and ids (and scancode's somewhat
expanded similar set) are great for stating license info succinctly.

scancode is great at collecting the info that should go into the
debian copyright file.

My goal for this iteration at our licensing process was to automate
collection of license info for the shared libraries our binary uses.

Here's the pipeline I set up to do that:

1) https://github.com/Oblong/obs/blob/master/ob-filter-licenses reads
a DEP-5 (aka Debian copyright) file and filters out any clauses that
(most likely) do not propagate to shared library artifacts
2) https://github.com/Oblong/obs/blob/master/ob-parse-licenses reads a
Debian copyright file, filters it through ob-filter-licenses, and
outputs spdx ids. (For non-DEP-5 copyright files, it uses scancode to
guess licenses.)
3) https://github.com/Oblong/obs/blob/master/ob-list-licenses uses ldd
to look up shared libraries used by a binary, uses dpkg-query to look
up the containing packages, and runs ob-parse-licenses on them.

For instance, running "ob-list-licences /bin/login" outputs:

libaudit1 https://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/audit/
GPL-2
LGPL-2.1

libc6 https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html
libc6-special

libcap-ng0 http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/libcap-ng
GPL-2.0-or-later
LGPL-2.1-only
GPL-1.0-or-later

libpam0g http://www.linux-pam.org/
BSD-3-Clause
GPL-1.0-or-later
GPL-2.0-only

This of course only solves a small part of the license / copyright
problem, and only approximately, but it found interesting things for
us.
- Dan


Re: Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

Jeremiah C. Foster
 

If I'm not mistaken, copyright has to be a string because it has to be legible by humans. This means you can likely grep through source code as scancode does with a fair degree of confidence and use 'strings' on binaries.

Using DEP-5 and Debian Copyright files where you can should also be sufficient for due diligence in most jurisdictions, but I can't point to any legal precedent as evidence.

SPDX helps by creating a framework for human and machine readable documentation of your work, but you'll still need to scan code for copyright.

Binaries likely require a bit of reverse engineering.


From: Dan Kegel <dank@...>
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 23:49
To: spdx@...
Subject: Re: [spdx] Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

I did look a bit at those, but they seemed more about unpacking
binaries than about wrangling copyrights.






This e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended only for the recipient(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive them. They may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read this email or its attachment(s). Furthermore, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment(s) or copies thereof from your system. Thank you.


Re: Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

Dan Kegel
 

I did look a bit at those, but they seemed more about unpacking
binaries than about wrangling copyrights.


Re: Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

Kate Stewart
 


On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:47 PM Jeremiah C. Foster <jfoster@...> wrote:
Have you looked at the binary analysis tool?

There's also BANG! (Binary Analysis Next Generation) that is in beta now.

Kate


Re: Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

Jeremiah C. Foster
 

Have you looked at the binary analysis tool?

Regards,

Jeremiah 

On Feb 4, 2019, at 14:20, Dan Kegel <dank@...> wrote:

Hi all!

Coming up with a list of licenses a binary is bound by is
a mind-boggling task that I avoid whenever possible.
I've been watching spdx and friends from afar for some time
in hopes they will help.

Recently I was asked to write a stateless, standalone tool that takes
a path to a
dynamically linked linux binary, and outputs an approximate list of licenses
the shared libraries it uses are bound by. Here's my current draft:
https://github.com/Oblong/obs/blob/master/ob-list-licenses

Roughly, it uses ldd and dpkg-query to locate copyright files
for all shared libraries it references, and then either
just outputs the License: values for DEP-5 copyright files,
or uses scancode to detect them for non-DEP-5 copyright files.

Now I'm plugging along, adding optional heuristics like
"XXX of dependencies can be filtered out (because I'm only interested
in the bits pulled in via dynamic linking)"
where XXX is "files: debian/*" and "files: doc/*"

Am I duplicating work?  I looked at fossology, but its complexity kind
of disqualifies it
(nothing about it seems standalone or stateless).

Thanks,
Dan






This e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended only for the recipient(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive them. They may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read this email or its attachment(s). Furthermore, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment(s) or copies thereof from your system. Thank you.


Standalone license tools for scanning debian/ubuntu apps?

Dan Kegel
 

Hi all!

Coming up with a list of licenses a binary is bound by is
a mind-boggling task that I avoid whenever possible.
I've been watching spdx and friends from afar for some time
in hopes they will help.

Recently I was asked to write a stateless, standalone tool that takes
a path to a
dynamically linked linux binary, and outputs an approximate list of licenses
the shared libraries it uses are bound by. Here's my current draft:
https://github.com/Oblong/obs/blob/master/ob-list-licenses

Roughly, it uses ldd and dpkg-query to locate copyright files
for all shared libraries it references, and then either
just outputs the License: values for DEP-5 copyright files,
or uses scancode to detect them for non-DEP-5 copyright files.

Now I'm plugging along, adding optional heuristics like
"XXX of dependencies can be filtered out (because I'm only interested
in the bits pulled in via dynamic linking)"
where XXX is "files: debian/*" and "files: doc/*"

Am I duplicating work? I looked at fossology, but its complexity kind
of disqualifies it
(nothing about it seems standalone or stateless).

Thanks,
Dan


[Openchain-japan-wg] Question about SPDX Light: Supported Fields

Shane Coughlan <coughlan@...>
 

Dear all

We have an active discussion via the OpenChain Japan Work Group (mostly in Japanese) about SPDX. Several Japanese companies are using SPDX in production today and are collaborating to this through a common approach and “ask” for suppliers, particularly those with a relatively limited understanding of open source.

This “ask” will be a subset variant of SPDX informally dubbed “SPDX Light.” It is not intended to break the SPDX Mandatory / Optional fields. Instead it is looking like a series of core fields plus some optional codified into one clear procurement request from multiple companies. One note and comment about this is below (English after the Japanese).

Please note:
(1) Japanese companies operate mostly in Japanese, which is why this discussion has not been occurring on the SPDX mailing list
(2) SPDX calls are at inaccessible times for Japanese companies, which has further hindered interaction

Nevertheless, this is a great moment for us all to jump into a shared discussion.

Regards

Shane 


Begin forwarded message:

From: <Hiroyuki.Fukuchi@...>
Date: 16 January 2019 at 12:34:57 GMT+9
To: <openchain-japan-wg@...>
Subject: [Openchain-japan-wg] Question about SPDX Light: Supported Fields

皆様

福地です

組織間のライセンス情報授受のSGで検討している仮称SPDX light
ですが、ISSUEリストに海外の方(mcjaeger)から書き込みがありました。

SPDX lightというミニマムセットを作るコンセプトに賛成のようで、
その上で提案と質問が来ています。

関心のある方は、彼の提案を読んでコメントを頂けませんでしょうか。


Question about SPDX Light: Supported Fields #2
https://github.com/OpenChain-Project/Japan-WG-General/issues/2

hello,

regarding the SPDX light proposal I would like to express more a question rather than an issue. I like the SPDX light proposal very much. I was wondering about the following additional elements more like a question:

for package information: I found the checksum very useful to exchange information about packages, maybe it could be considered as well? is it maybe confusing hwne the same package was compiled multiple times?

How about an acknowledgement field attached to license information? (For licenses that ask for acknowledgement, such as https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-4-Clause-UC.html because then, acknowledgement documentation could easily generated from SPDX.

Export control and customs, ECC notice (since patent notice is already envisaged) for a package could be used (with reference in which file it was found)

would be package download location also the package management id? (for example it is named "artefact id" for maven packages)

ignore flag for files which could be info that this file was not part of license analysis or isnot considered as license analysis because it is considered irrelevant.

Please see my remarks just as quick feedback from the posting on openchain mailing list. My idea was it could be a good place here to ask a question about this document:

https://github.com/OpenChain-Project/Japan-WG-General/blob/master/License-Info-Exchange/Doc-at-Meeting/Candidate-of-SDPX-light.md


---
福地 弘行 (Hiroyuki.Fukuchi@...)
ソニー(株)UX企画部 アライアンス業務課

_______________________________________________
Openchain-japan-wg mailing list
Openchain-japan-wg@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain-japan-wg


Re: [OpenChain] Knowledge Sharing: Reference guideline for exchanging license information in the supply chain

Shane Coughlan <coughlan@...>
 

HI Fukuchi San

Very interesting and exciting collaboration. I understand that companies like Fujitsu are actively deploying SPDX.

I think you have already spoken about your activity with Kate. I think the basic note is: if using a cut down version of SDPX the important thing is to have the File Analyzed attribute set to “false”.

I am adding SDPX mailing list to CC.

Regards

Shane

On Jan 11, 2019, at 18:10, <Hiroyuki.Fukuchi@...> <Hiroyuki.Fukuchi@...> wrote:

Hi all,

Yesterday, the subgroup held a face-to-face meeting to discuss SPDX light.
(Members belong to the automotive, consumer electronics and IT industries.)
The outcome is here:
https://github.com/OpenChain-Project/Japan-WG-General/blob/master/License-Info-Exchange/Doc-at-Meeting/Candidate-of-SDPX-light.md

You can see which items in SPDX are being discussed.

---
Hiro Fukuchi (Hiroyuki.Fukuchi@...)
Sony

-----Original Message-----
From: Fukuchi, Hiroyuki (Sony)
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 9:27 AM
To: Shane Coughlan <coughlan@...>; Jeff McAffer
<Jeff.McAffer@...>
Cc: OpenChain <openchain@...>;
openchain-japan-wg@...
Subject: RE: [OpenChain] Knowledge Sharing: Reference guideline for
exchanging license information in the supply chain

Hi Jeff-san,

• Is there more detail somewhere on SPDX light?
Now Japan WG is considering the "SPDX light".

The current format under discussion is shared at GitHub:
(An Example of Minimum License Information List (Automotive))
https://github.com/OpenChain-Project/Japan-WG-General/blob/master/Licens
e-Info-Exchange/Doc-at-Meeting/License-Info-list-automotive.md

We will prepare a brief explanation, a sample data and a procedure to produce it.


The concept is:
The target user of "SPDX light" is a supplier who do not have enough knowledge
about SPDX and OSS compliance.
It is easy to use without tool, but having minimum set for compliance and
SPDX-affinity.


---
Hiro Fukuchi (Hiroyuki.Fukuchi@...) Sony

-----Original Message-----
From: openchain-bounces@...
<openchain-bounces@...> On Behalf Of Shane
Coughlan
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 3:56 PM
To: Jeff McAffer <Jeff.McAffer@...>
Cc: OpenChain <openchain@...>;
openchain-japan-wg@...
Subject: Re: [OpenChain] Knowledge Sharing: Reference guideline for
exchanging license information in the supply chain

Hi Jeff!

Great question. The OpenChain Japan WG has adjacent material on
SDPX/FOSSology:
https://www.openchainproject.org/news/2019/01/09/knowledge-sharing-how
- to-use-spdx-and-fossology-from-the-openchain-japan-work-group
(Just announced a couple of minutes ago)

About ClearlyDefined, absolutely. All community projects should align
closely for cross-use and interoperability. Let me hook you up to the
Japan WG (in CC) so you can chat direct about how the reference materials can
be expended.

Regards

Shane

On Jan 10, 2019, at 15:49, Jeff McAffer <Jeff.McAffer@...> wrote:

Looks good Shane. Two questions:
• Is there more detail somewhere on SPDX light?
• Would it make sense for ClearlyDefined to be a Community source
of
license and copyright info?

Jeff


From: openchain-bounces@...
<openchain-bounces@...> On Behalf Of Shane
Coughlan
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 10:34 PM
To: OpenChain <openchain@...>
Subject: [OpenChain] Knowledge Sharing: Reference guideline for
exchanging
license information in the supply chain

<image001.jpg>
The OpenChain Project Japan Work Group is creating a reference
guideline for
exchanging license information in the supply chain. The basic concept
is that all the entities, suppliers, integrators and OSS communities
exchange license information by SPDX (Software Package Data Exchange),
an open standard for communicating software bill of material information.

Learn More:
• Japan work group:
https://github.com/OpenChain-Project/Japan-WG-General
• SPDX: https://spdx.org/
• REUSE initiative: https://reuse.software/

--
Shane Coughlan
General Manager, OpenChain
e: coughlan@...
p: +81 (0) 80 4035 8083
w: www.openchainproject.org

Schedule a call:
https://calendly.com/shanecoughlan
--
Shane Coughlan
General Manager, OpenChain
e: coughlan@...
p: +81 (0) 80 4035 8083
w: www.openchainproject.org

Schedule a call:
https://calendly.com/shanecoughlan

_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain
--
Shane Coughlan
General Manager, OpenChain
e: coughlan@...
p: +81 (0) 80 4035 8083
w: www.openchainproject.org

Schedule a call:
https://calendly.com/shanecoughlan

381 - 400 of 1604