hi, I've recently taken over adequate(1) and am considering to drop its license compatibility checks, for several reasons:
- unlike 2013, which is when adequate grew this functionality, today many well-funded organizations actively care about license compliance (e.g. see fossology.org), so I'd expect major cases of non-compliance to be noticed - afaict in almost 11 years of adequate's existence, only one actual case of non-compliance was found (#749801) [0] - the relevant logic is non-trivial, and prone to false positives in the case of binary packages shipping multiple libraries with different licenses; it also hardwires soname/license/version mappings for major libraries (I'd guess as a workaround for the aforementioned issue), which I consider unsustainable from a maintenance PoV if you feel strongly against this proposal, you're more than welcome to join the adequate maintainers team (today, just me) and make your case with code. of course you're also welcome to join even if you do agree with the proposal! thanks, serafi ps. please cc me in replies [0] I've looked at piuparts and adequate tagged bugs
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
