How to handle GFDL/GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

There is a man page in one of my packages that is distributed under
the GFDL. This used to be a valid (documentation) license. But
recently rpminspect (as run in bodhi) flags it as invalid, both the
old-style tag GFDL (in f39) and the new-style tag
GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later (in rawhide):

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-70de8a8207
https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/ca605c04-706a-4124-b73b-bb97d57c2b98/
BAD Unapproved license in elfutils-0.190-1.fc39.src: GFDL Not Waivable

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d4cc1aa93d
https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/d3a446b9-ad10-40da-8fbc-526331385be0/
BAD Unapproved license in elfutils-0.190-2.fc40.src: GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later Not
Waivable

license-validate-20-1.fc38 did allow these licenses:
$ license-validate -v --old "GFDL"
Approved license
$ license-validate -v "GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later"
Approved license

Thanks,

Mark

[Petr Pisar]

V Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:31:47AM +0100, Mark Wielaard napsal(a):
>  Hi,
>  
>  There is a man page in one of my packages that is distributed under
>  the GFDL. This used to be a valid (documentation) license. But
>  recently rpminspect (as run in bodhi) flags it as invalid, both the
>  old-style tag GFDL (in f39) and the new-style tag
>  GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later (in rawhide):
>  
>  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-70de8a8207
>  https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/ca605c04-706a-4124-b73b-bb97d57c2b98/
>  BAD Unapproved license in elfutils-0.190-1.fc39.src: GFDL Not Waivable
>  
>  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d4cc1aa93d
>  https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/d3a446b9-ad10-40da-8fbc-526331385be0/
>  BAD Unapproved license in elfutils-0.190-2.fc40.src: GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later Not
> Waivable
>  
>  license-validate-20-1.fc38 did allow these licenses:
>  $ license-validate -v --old "GFDL"
>  Approved license
>  $ license-validate -v "GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later"
>  Approved license
>   
I can reproduce it with
rpminspect-1.13-0.1.202310261816git5b272b3.fc40.x86_64.

I believe a problem is that the license is not allowed in general. It is
only allowed for a documentation:

    $ cat data/GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later.toml
    [license]

    expression = "GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later"
    status = [ "allowed-documentation" ]

so rpminspect probably raises a failure than assuming it's a documentation.

There is a similar bug report
<https://github.com/rpminspect/rpminspect/issues/1237>;.

-- Petr

[David Cantrell]

On 11/6/23 08:28, Petr Pisar wrote:
>  V Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:31:47AM +0100, Mark Wielaard napsal(a):
> > Hi,
> >
> > There is a man page in one of my packages that is distributed under
> > the GFDL. This used to be a valid (documentation) license. But
> > recently rpminspect (as run in bodhi) flags it as invalid, both the
> > old-style tag GFDL (in f39) and the new-style tag
> > GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later (in rawhide):
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-70de8a8207
> > https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/ca605c04-706a-4124-b73b-bb97d57c2b98/
> > BAD Unapproved license in elfutils-0.190-1.fc39.src: GFDL Not Waivable
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d4cc1aa93d
> > https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/d3a446b9-ad10-40da-8fbc-526331385be0/
> > BAD Unapproved license in elfutils-0.190-2.fc40.src: GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later
> Not Waivable
> >
> > license-validate-20-1.fc38 did allow these licenses:
> > $ license-validate -v --old "GFDL"
> > Approved license
> > $ license-validate -v "GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later"
> > Approved license
> >
>  I can reproduce it with
>  rpminspect-1.13-0.1.202310261816git5b272b3.fc40.x86_64.
>  
>  I believe a problem is that the license is not allowed in general. It is
>  only allowed for a documentation:
>  
>      $ cat data/GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later.toml
>      [license]
>  
>      expression = "GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later"
>      status = [ "allowed-documentation" ]
>  
>  so rpminspect probably raises a failure than assuming it's a documentation.
>  
>  There is a similar bug report
>  <https://github.com/rpminspect/rpminspect/issues/1237>;. 
rpminspect is not supposed to make that distinction.  That is, the
allowed type matching the content type because it can't know or figure
that out.  We don't have any rules that map file types by any indicator
to allowed category.  If the license is "allowed*" in the database,
rpminspect is supposed to consider that passing for the purposes of the
License tag check.

This sounds like a bug on my part.

-- 
David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com&gt;
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT