Feature: Please consider "Zope Public License"
fhg-isi opened this issue · 4 comments
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe
I use the library waitress, having a "Zope Public License":
https://github.com/Pylons/waitress
https://github.com/Pylons/waitress/blob/main/LICENSE.txt
licensecheck yields
WARN: 'ZOPE PUBLIC LICENSE' License not identified so falling back to NO_LICENSE
Describe the solution you'd like
Consider the license
Describe alternatives you've considered
Support of a whitelist, so that I can alter the behavior of licensecheck by configuration.
As for the alternative, just saw the --ignore-licenses option:
https://github.com/FHPythonUtils/LicenseCheck#help
and tried to apply it to add Zope Public License to the white list.
However, following settings do not seem to work
[tool.licensecheck]
using = 'PEP631'
zero = true # results in non-zero exit code if incompatibilities are found
ignore-licenses = [
'Zope Public License', # not known by licensecheck; similar to BSD and compatible to agplv3
'Apache Software License' # currently there is a bug about the compatibility of apache license and agplv3; therefore we ignore it
]
Exit code is still 1 and licenses are shown as not compatible:
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Compatible ┃ Package ┃ License(s) ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ ✔ │ Flask │ BSD License │
│ ✔ │ Flask-Compress │ MIT License │
│ ✔ │ Flask-Cors │ MIT License │
│ ✔ │ Werkzeug │ BSD License │
│ ✔ │ XlsxWriter │ BSD License │
│ ✔ │ numpy │ BSD License │
│ ✔ │ openpyxl │ MIT License │
│ ✔ │ pandas │ BSD License │
│ ✖ │ requests │ Apache Software License │
│ ✔ │ urllib3 │ MIT License │
│ ✖ │ waitress │ Zope Public License │
│ ✖ │ watchdog │ Apache Software License │
└────────────┴────────────────┴─────────────────────────┘
@fhg-isi you could try to use the ignore-packages
flag
[tool.licensecheck]
using = 'PEP631'
ignore_packages = ['requests', 'waitress', 'watchdog']
zero = true
Hopefully the ignore-licenses has been fixed. But yeah the ignore-packages is another workaround you may want to use. Also depending on how you use licensecheck you may just want to make a note when using it / for the development team? Of course this is a different story for CICD. I'll be sure to investigate this further and hopefully can confirm a fix for that behaviour
Not sure when I'll be supporting Zope public license yet, there are a few bits of refactoring I'd like to do to support unknown compatibility states and improve compatibility management
Hopefully the ignore-licenses has been fixed
Nope. But ignoring the individual package(s) that use that license worked as a workaround.