Hi Jonas On Friday, 31 January 2020 20:28:50 CET Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I agree with your analysis but not your conclusion: I will argue that > the image _does_ have copyright information - just not at its ideal > place.
Hmmf, you're right. I assumed wrongly that the ICC info was kind of a pointer, not mapping data between colors. > Concretely I do think that you have spotted an issue with an image > containing non-free code, and I recommend that you report or fix it. Thanks for the advice. This worked quite well: https://github.com/libuv/libuv/issues/2670 https://github.com/libuv/libuv/pull/2672 I'm prettysure the stripped images will be merged for libuv1 release. Thanks for pushing me to do this :-) > Just yesterday I wrote down in the TODO file for licensecheck (but not > yet added that edit to git) that it would be nice if a set of > "qualities" was expressed, besides the concrete task of finding > copyright and licnesing statements. It was inspired by the currently > the only "side note" tracked - "(with wrong address)" - and presented > only in default output (it really should be added as a Comment when > generating DEP-5 output), but fits well with this example too. ok, I'm wondering if you plan to include this information in "machine" output. That may break the processing done by cme. > Here is the full list I wrote down: > > * Quality flagging > + ambiguous: license ref pointing to multiple license fulltexts > (e.g. "MIT" or "GNU" or "GPL" > + unlicensed: copyright holder(s) but no licensing > + ungranted: license fullref requiring explicit grant, > but no corresponding license grant > + incomplete: fractions of license fullref, but no complete fullref > + alien: license label but no license name > + unowned: license but no copyright holder > + uncertain: license ref and more unknown text > in same sentence/paragraph/section > + buried: license or copyright not at top of file > + unstructured: license/copyright not at ideal place of data structure > (e.g. in commend field of EXIF data, or in content o of PDF/HTML) > + unaligned: license/copyright out of sync between layers of structure > (e.g. ICC data and EXIF data of PNG, or content and metadata of > PDF/HTML) + imperfect: license ref not following format documented in > license fulltext + conflict: incompatible licenses > (e.g. GPL-3+ and GPL-2-only, or OpenSSL and GPL) > > The example you present here would ideally (continue to report HP as > copyright holder - and more reliably so, but that's a separate issue - > and) be flagged as "unlicensed", "buried" and "unaligned". > > Does that make sense? yes, but I'm not sure how I could exploit this information with cme. May be a mechanism similer to "and/or" in license: a license statement with "and/or" is allowed but triggers a warning inviting cme user to investigate manually the problematic file and override the information extracted by licensecheck. > Would you agree to turn this bugreport into a > wishlist reminder for making that side-note spiffy-ness happen? Sure. All the best
