Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 21, 2024. It is now read-only.

Support Maven(?) scopes #183

Open
jerrinot opened this issue Sep 23, 2020 · 9 comments · May be fixed by #188
Open

Support Maven(?) scopes #183

jerrinot opened this issue Sep 23, 2020 · 9 comments · May be fixed by #188
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Priority: Critical Critical priority issues

Comments

@jerrinot
Copy link

jerrinot commented Sep 23, 2020

It's OK to have a certain license as a build-time only dependency.

Think of a benchmark harness under a GPL license: We only use it during a build/testing time and we never distribute it / our product does not depend on it. So as long as it stays as a build-time only dependency only it's OK and it should not have been reported.

However I am reluctant to whitelist/ignore this dependency/license because if someone accidentally change the scope of this dependency then it won't be reported at all and this would lead to a compliance issue.

@jankoritak jankoritak added enhancement New feature or request Web App License.sh also provides cloud-hosted Web application at https://license.sh/ labels Sep 24, 2020
@4rokis
Copy link
Contributor

4rokis commented Sep 24, 2020

@jerrinot That's for this issue.

You are correct. We should not include "dev" issues in the results.

@4rokis 4rokis added Priority: Critical Critical priority issues and removed Web App License.sh also provides cloud-hosted Web application at https://license.sh/ labels Sep 24, 2020
@4rokis
Copy link
Contributor

4rokis commented Sep 24, 2020

@jankoritak Removing Web App label. This is core issue

@4rokis
Copy link
Contributor

4rokis commented Sep 24, 2020

✔️ NPM
✔️ YARN
✖️ PIPENV
✖️ MAVEN

@4rokis
Copy link
Contributor

4rokis commented Sep 24, 2020

Pipenv issue has separate issue as there might be another issue #187

@jankoritak
Copy link
Member

I see, so the problem is exclusive to Pip and Maven. Let's focus the Maven part within this thread, in order to address @jerrinot's issue.

We can deal with Pip separately.

@4rokis
Copy link
Contributor

4rokis commented Sep 24, 2020

If i understand it correctly from https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#Dependency_Scope

You can have 6 scopes (compile, provided, runtime, test, system, import). Only test scope is not included in the product itself. So test scope should not be included in the license dependency tree.

@jerrinot Can you please confirm that this is correct?

@jerrinot
Copy link
Author

jerrinot commented Sep 24, 2020

@S4n60w3n It depends. Usually you do not want to include libraries in a test test scope in compliance checks.
but this depends on a license.

It's probably fine for GPL as you typically don't distribute test code. but imagine a testing library with a license which says: "Everything this testing library touches belongs to me. Deal with it. :trollface:"

Then you do not want to use this library even in a test scope and you want a compliance check to fail when it encounters this library under any scope.

The other scopes are similar. The provided scope is probably fine for many vendors - as it's typically not the vendor who distributes these libraries. but in some cases you want to run compliance checks even for these scopes.

@4rokis
Copy link
Contributor

4rokis commented Sep 24, 2020

@jerrinot Thanks for clarification. Ill update it so for now we have is consistent with npm and yarn. And ill create new issues with the

It's probably fine for GPL as you typically don't distribute test code. but imagine a testing library with a license which says: "Everything this testing library touches belongs to me. Deal with it. "

As it requires more input

@4rokis 4rokis linked a pull request Sep 24, 2020 that will close this issue
@4rokis
Copy link
Contributor

4rokis commented Sep 24, 2020

Proper support for dependency scopes #189

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Priority: Critical Critical priority issues
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants