You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Hi team,
A question about SRP compliance. That licenses declaration assembling procedure (package builder -> license.txt) per required and build-required subcomponent is a safe path, no doubts, however how does it respect the vendor's subcomponent declaration? For instance see shim, the redhat boot loader, statically declared in https://github.com/rhboot/shim/blob/main/COPYRIGHT. Do you use that information somehow, too?
Kind regards,
Daniel
Describe the solution you'd like
Up-to-date, granular and well-maintained license data
Really looking forward, good progress!
Describe alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Daniel,
Our automation uses [1] which scans every single file in a tarball and patches for licenses info including header content.
COPYRIGHT file in your example going to be captured also.
In result, spec's license field will be changed to long (especially for linux kernel) string in SPDX format.
This license information will be used for product's SBOMs.
Hi Alexey,
Yes that automation makes absolutely sense. Improving that automation is crucial. Thank you for the weblink. Scancode inside seems to be the appropriate parsing tool.
edited: December 16th 2024
QA remarks:
The copyright information can be scanned, but afaik isn't included in license.txt(?)
Should scanning srpms and Github Photon source look the same? I was tinkering with ./scancode -clpeui --json-pp scancode_result.json extractcode <file/dir>.
Is SRPCLI a closed source <> scancode-toolkit? Running make build the classic way (make image IMG_NAME=iso) on Photon OS 5 warns with SRPCLI is not provided. SRP provenance will not be generated.
Backward SRP tasks for Ph4+Ph3 are not planned, right?
dcasota
changed the title
SRP compliance question
SRP compliance questions
Dec 29, 2024
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Hi team,
A question about SRP compliance. That licenses declaration assembling procedure (package builder -> license.txt) per required and build-required subcomponent is a safe path, no doubts, however how does it respect the vendor's subcomponent declaration? For instance see shim, the redhat boot loader, statically declared in https://github.com/rhboot/shim/blob/main/COPYRIGHT. Do you use that information somehow, too?
Kind regards,
Daniel
Describe the solution you'd like
Up-to-date, granular and well-maintained license data
Really looking forward, good progress!
Describe alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: