[PATCH 0/1] base/license.bbclass: handle multiple INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSEs

[PATCH 0/1] base/license.bbclass: handle multiple INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSEs

[Andy Ross]

We hit a problem trying to exclude L/GPLv3 recipes where
INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE could only match exactly one license.  The older
wildcard syntax had been broken by a more recent SPDX change
(specifying a string without a SPDXLICENSEMAP entry could crash), so
"*GPLv3" wouldn't work.

This fixes that, and extends INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE to handle a
whitespace-separated list of license strings to exclude (e.g "GPLv3
LGPLv3").  This is compatible with existing usage because the LICENSE
parsing is already done on whitespace: a pre-existing
INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE value with whitespace could not have matched
anything in practice.

All other behavior should be unaffected.  Note specifically that the
LGPLv2_WHITELIST_${license} variables are used as whitelists for all
licenses (i.e. identically to WHITELIST_... and
HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_...).  That sounds wrong, but seems to have been
the preexisting behavior.  Ideas?

Andy

[PATCH] base/license.bbclass: handle multiple INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSEs

[Andy Ross]

Allow INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE to be a whitespace-separated list of
incompatible license strings and/or glob patterns.

Also fix wildcarding: the string in INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE was clearly
intended to match with wildcards (e.g. "*GPLv3" to match both GPLv3
and LGPLv3), but this was broken because of a bug in return_spdx()
which would die with a runtime error when there was no SPDXLICENSEMAP
entry for the string.

Signed-off-by: Andy Ross <andy.ross@windriver.com>
---
 meta/classes/base.bbclass    | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 meta/classes/license.bbclass | 69 +++++++++++++++++---------------------------
 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/base.bbclass b/meta/classes/base.bbclass
index 783b64d..f53b59c 100644
--- a/meta/classes/base.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/base.bbclass
@@ -524,41 +524,44 @@ python () {
                     raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("incompatible with machine %s (not in COMPATIBLE_MACHINE)" % this_machine)
 
 
-        dont_want_license = d.getVar('INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE', True)
-
-        if dont_want_license and not pn.endswith("-native") and not pn.endswith("-cross") and not pn.endswith("-cross-initial") and not pn.endswith("-cross-intermediate") and not pn.endswith("-crosssdk-intermediate") and not pn.endswith("-crosssdk") and not pn.endswith("-crosssdk-initial") and not pn.endswith("-cross-canadian-%s" % d.getVar('TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH', True)) and not pn.startswith("nativesdk-"):
-        # Internally, we'll use the license mapping. This way INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv2" and
-        # INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv2.0" will pick up all variations of GPL-2.0
-            spdx_license = return_spdx(d, dont_want_license)
-            hosttools_whitelist = (d.getVar('HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_%s' % dont_want_license, True) or d.getVar('HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_%s' % spdx_license, True) or "").split()
-            lgplv2_whitelist = (d.getVar('LGPLv2_WHITELIST_%s' % dont_want_license, True) or d.getVar('HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_%s' % spdx_license, True) or "").split()
-            dont_want_whitelist = (d.getVar('WHITELIST_%s' % dont_want_license, True) or d.getVar('HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_%s' % spdx_license, True) or "").split()
-            if pn not in hosttools_whitelist and pn not in lgplv2_whitelist and pn not in dont_want_whitelist:
-                this_license = d.getVar('LICENSE', True)
-                # At this point we know the recipe contains an INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE, however it may contain packages that do not.
-                packages = d.getVar('PACKAGES', True).split()
-                dont_skip_recipe = False
-                skipped_packages = {}
-                unskipped_packages = []
-                for pkg in packages:
-                    if incompatible_license(d, dont_want_license, pkg):
-                            skipped_packages[pkg] = this_license
-                            dont_skip_recipe = True
+        bad_licenses = (d.getVar('INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE', True) or "").split()
+
+        check_license = True
+        for t in ["-native", "-cross", "-cross-initial", "-cross-intermediate", "-crosssdk-intermediate", "-crosssdk", "-crosssdk-initial", "-nativesdk"]:
+            if pn.endswith(t):
+                check_license = False
+
+        if check_license and bad_licenses:
+            whitelist = []
+            for lic in bad_licenses:
+                for w in ["HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_", "LGPLv2_WHITELIST_", "WHITELIST_"]:
+                    whitelist.extend((d.getVar(w + lic, True) or "").split())
+                spdx_license = return_spdx(d, lic)
+                if spdx_license:
+                    whitelist.extend((d.getVar('HOSTTOOLS_WHITELIST_%s' % spdx_license, True) or "").split())
+            if not pn in whitelist:
+                recipe_license = d.getVar('LICENSE', True)
+                pkgs = d.getVar('PACKAGES', True).split()
+                skipped_pkgs = []
+                unskipped_pkgs = []
+                for pkg in pkgs:
+                    if incompatible_license(d, bad_licenses, pkg):
+                        skipped_pkgs.append(pkg)
                     else:
-                        unskipped_packages.append(pkg)
-                if not unskipped_packages:
-                    # if we hit here and have excluded all packages, then we can just exclude the recipe
-                    dont_skip_recipe = False
-                elif skipped_packages and unskipped_packages:
-                    for pkg, license in skipped_packages.iteritems():
-                        bb.note("SKIPPING the package " + pkg + " at do_rootfs because it's " + this_license)
+                        unskipped_pkgs.append(pkg)
+
+                some_skipped = skipped_pkgs and unskipped_pkgs
+                all_skipped = skipped_pkgs and not unskipped_pkgs
+
+                if some_skipped:
+                    for pkg in skipped_pkgs:
+                        bb.note("SKIPPING the package " + pkg + " at do_rootfs because it's " + recipe_license)
                         d.setVar('LICENSE_EXCLUSION-' + pkg, 1)
-                    for index, pkg in enumerate(unskipped_packages):
+                    for pkg in unskipped_pkgs:
                         bb.note("INCLUDING the package " + pkg)
-
-                if dont_skip_recipe is False and incompatible_license(d, dont_want_license):
-                    bb.note("SKIPPING recipe %s because it's %s" % (pn, this_license))
-                    raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("incompatible with license %s" % this_license)
+                elif all_skipped or incompatible_license(d, bad_licenses):
+                    bb.note("SKIPPING recipe %s because it's %s" % (pn, recipe_license))
+                    raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("incompatible with license %s" % recipe_license)
 
 
 
diff --git a/meta/classes/license.bbclass b/meta/classes/license.bbclass
index a66933f..3ae2510 100644
--- a/meta/classes/license.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/license.bbclass
@@ -207,14 +207,11 @@ python do_populate_lic() {
 
 def return_spdx(d, license):
     """
-    This function returns the spdx mapping of a license.
+    This function returns the spdx mapping of a license if it exists.
     """
-    if d.getVarFlag('SPDXLICENSEMAP', license) != None:
-        return license
-    else:
-        return d.getVarFlag('SPDXLICENSEMAP', license_type)
+    return d.getVarFlag('SPDXLICENSEMAP', license, True)
 
-def incompatible_license(d, dont_want_license, package=""):
+def incompatible_license(d, dont_want_licenses, package=None):
     """
     This function checks if a recipe has only incompatible licenses. It also take into consideration 'or'
     operand.
@@ -222,46 +219,32 @@ def incompatible_license(d, dont_want_license, package=""):
     import re
     import oe.license
     from fnmatch import fnmatchcase as fnmatch
+
     pn = d.getVar('PN', True)
-    dont_want_licenses = []
-    dont_want_licenses.append(d.getVar('INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE', True))
-    recipe_license = d.getVar('LICENSE', True)
-    if package != "":
-        if d.getVar('LICENSE_' + pn + '-' + package, True):
-            license = d.getVar('LICENSE_' + pn + '-' + package, True)
-        else:
-            license = recipe_license
-    else:
-        license = recipe_license
-    spdx_license = return_spdx(d, dont_want_license)
-    dont_want_licenses.append(spdx_license)
-
-    def include_license(license):
-        if any(fnmatch(license, pattern) for pattern in dont_want_licenses):
-            return False
-        else:
-            return True
+    license = d.getVar("LICENSE_%s-%s" % (pn, package), True) if package else None
+    if not license:
+        license = d.getVar('LICENSE', True)
+
+    def license_ok(license):
+        for dwl in dont_want_licenses:
+            # If you want to exclude license named generically 'X', we
+            # surely want to exclude 'X+' as well.  In consequence, we
+            # will exclude a trailing '+' character from LICENSE in
+            # case INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE is not a 'X+' license.
+            lic = license
+	    if not re.search('\+$', dwl):
+                lic = re.sub('\+', '', license)
+            if fnmatch(lic, dwl):
+                return False
+        return True
 
-    def choose_licenses(a, b):
-        if all(include_license(lic) for lic in a):
-            return a
-        else:
-            return b
+    # Handles an "or" or two license sets provided by
+    # flattened_licenses(), pick one that works if possible.
+    def choose_lic_set(a, b):
+        return a if all(license_ok(lic) for lic in a) else b
 
-    """
-    If you want to exlude license named generically 'X', we surely want to exlude 'X+' as well.
-    In consequence, we will exclude the '+' character from LICENSE in case INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE
-    is not a 'X+' license.
-    """
-    if not re.search(r'[+]',dont_want_license):
-        licenses=oe.license.flattened_licenses(re.sub(r'[+]', '', license), choose_licenses)
-    else:
-        licenses=oe.license.flattened_licenses(license, choose_licenses)
-
-    for onelicense in licenses:
-        if not include_license(onelicense):
-            return True
-    return False
+    licenses=oe.license.flattened_licenses(license, choose_lic_set)
+    return any(not license_ok(l) for l in licenses)
 
 def check_license_flags(d):
     """
-- 
1.7.11.4

Re: [PATCH 0/1] base/license.bbclass: handle multiple INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSEs

[Andy Ross]

On 11/01/2012 11:02 AM, Andy Ross wrote:
> We hit a problem trying to exclude L/GPLv3 recipes where
> INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE could only match exactly one license.  The older
> wildcard syntax had been broken by a more recent SPDX change
> (specifying a string without a SPDXLICENSEMAP entry could crash), so
> "*GPLv3" wouldn't work.

Ping

Re: [PATCH 0/1] base/license.bbclass: handle multiple INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSEs

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 11:09 -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 11:02 AM, Andy Ross wrote:
> > We hit a problem trying to exclude L/GPLv3 recipes where
> > INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE could only match exactly one license.  The older
> > wildcard syntax had been broken by a more recent SPDX change
> > (specifying a string without a SPDXLICENSEMAP entry could crash), so
> > "*GPLv3" wouldn't work.
> 
> Ping

I'd like Beth to comment on this patch and she was out last week. I'm
not 100% if she is back this week :/.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 0/1] base/license.bbclass: handle multiple INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSEs

[Flanagan, Elizabeth]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 11:09 -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
>> On 11/01/2012 11:02 AM, Andy Ross wrote:
>> > We hit a problem trying to exclude L/GPLv3 recipes where
>> > INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE could only match exactly one license.  The older
>> > wildcard syntax had been broken by a more recent SPDX change
>> > (specifying a string without a SPDXLICENSEMAP entry could crash), so
>> > "*GPLv3" wouldn't work.
>>
>> Ping
>
> I'd like Beth to comment on this patch and she was out last week. I'm
> not 100% if she is back this week :/.
Sorry about the absence (ELCE/Vacation/Thanksgiving had me out for a while).

This patch needs a rebase and a minor bit of whitespace work. I've
done some work to make it apply to the current master head and tested
it out and it does improve the utility of INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE quite a
bit.

I was able to not-create an image with:

INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE += "*BSD*"
INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE += "*GPL*"

Obviously this would fail, however this does end up excluding all
*GPL* and *BSD* licenses.

If it's ok with you, Andy, I'll just submit my modifications to your patch.

-b

>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core



-- 
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release

Re: [PATCH 0/1] base/license.bbclass: handle multiple INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSEs

[Andy Ross]

On 11/28/2012 03:14 PM, Flanagan, Elizabeth wrote:
> This patch needs a rebase and a minor bit of whitespace work. I've
> done some work to make it apply to the current master head and tested
> it out and it does improve the utility of INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE quite a
> bit.

Hm... AFAICT the content of the patch still seems to apply cleanly
with git am on a just-pulled poky (don't have an oe-core tree on this
machine) master HEAD.  Am I looking at a wrong branch?

> If it's ok with you, Andy, I'll just submit my modifications to your patch.

Fine with me.

Andy

Re: [PATCH 0/1] base/license.bbclass: handle multiple INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSEs

[Flanagan, Elizabeth]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Andy Ross <andy.ross@windriver.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 03:14 PM, Flanagan, Elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> This patch needs a rebase and a minor bit of whitespace work. I've
>> done some work to make it apply to the current master head and tested
>> it out and it does improve the utility of INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE quite a
>> bit.
>
>
> Hm... AFAICT the content of the patch still seems to apply cleanly
> with git am on a just-pulled poky (don't have an oe-core tree on this
> machine) master HEAD.  Am I looking at a wrong branch?
>

Let me recheck. It wasn't applying clean for me but it may be on my end.

-b

>
>> If it's ok with you, Andy, I'll just submit my modifications to your
>> patch.
>
>
> Fine with me.
>
> Andy
>
>



-- 
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release