Date   
Test Server

Matt Germonprez <germonprez@...>
 

Hi,

The test server at:


is not taking the credentials of testuser/test

Matt


--
Mutual of Omaha Associate Professor
Information Systems 
College of Information Science & Technology 
University of Nebraska Omaha
he / him / his

Updating Documentation

Michael C. Jaeger
 

Hi,

we would like to update the documentation of FOSSology, bascially also to clean up outdated parts.

We have created a "github project" in the fossology/fossology area:

https://github.com/fossology/fossology/projects/4

-> if you have suggestions to the created issues or suggestions as new issues please feel free to use issues for covering them!

Kind regards, Michael

Re: Multiple FOSSology wikis

Michael C. Jaeger
 

Hello,

thanks for reaching out with this topic.

I am tempted to propose to abandon the wiki.fossology.org, since it could be covered with the github wiki.

In general, my view is the same as you put it:

1. https://github.com/fossology/fossology/wiki - This seems to be developer-focused
2. https://wiki.fossology.org/start - This appears to be more general project documentation
3. http://archive15.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki - This, of course, is the old archived wiki
adding to that

4. https://fossology.github.io : Gaurav has invested some time in the past months to automatically generate the doxygen documentation (and md files from the repo) into html pages and push it to the github home page mechanism.

I also agree with your proposal, so that we move content from wiki.fossology.org to https://github.com/fossology/fossology/wiki and safely leave [3] to gracefully collect dust. I would leave it there, since also there seems to quite a number of servers on version 1.X as some postings have shown and what does not happen often, but from time to time I am searching for old information on Software Project on the Web too and find it disappointing if pages have been pulled off.

So I understand right, proposal to reach the following documentation landscape is:

1. https://www.fossology.org : Introduction to Project and static general information
2. https://github.com/fossology/fossology/wiki : Wiki and developer information
3. https://fossology.github.io : doxygen content
4. http://archive15.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki : Historic archive to trace how things were ten years ago

does it sound like a plan? (also @all)

Kind regards, Michael

On 21. May 2019, at 17:39, Dan Stangel <dan.stangel@...> wrote:

Hi FOSSologists,

I was reviewing some FOSSology project documentation in preparation for setting up a new enterprise FO 3.x system, and realized there are at least three (3) separate project wikis, in addition to the main project website at https://www.fossology.org/

1. https://github.com/fossology/fossology/wiki - This seems to be developer-focused
2. https://wiki.fossology.org/start - This appears to be more general project documentation
3. http://archive15.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki - This, of course, is the old archived wiki

Should we be focusing efforts on editing and updating [1], [2], or both? I assume that we can safely leave [3] to gracefully collect dust. Also there is duplicated content between [1] and [2] -- and more concerning, some conflicts. If we're using both wikis, should we try to replace this duplicate info with cross-references between the two wikis?

Thanks!
Dan Stangel



Multiple FOSSology wikis

Dan Stangel
 

Hi FOSSologists,

I was reviewing some FOSSology project documentation in preparation for setting up a new enterprise FO 3.x system, and realized there are at least three (3) separate project wikis, in addition to the main project website at https://www.fossology.org/

1. https://github.com/fossology/fossology/wiki - This seems to be developer-focused
2. https://wiki.fossology.org/start - This appears to be more general project documentation
3. http://archive15.fossology.org/projects/fossology/wiki - This, of course, is the old archived wiki

Should we be focusing efforts on editing and updating [1], [2], or both? I assume that we can safely leave [3] to gracefully collect dust. Also there is duplicated content between [1] and [2] -- and more concerning, some conflicts. If we're using both wikis, should we try to replace this duplicate info with cross-references between the two wikis?

Thanks!
Dan Stangel

Re: Ninka Usage Question

Matija Šuklje
 

Die 20. 05. 19 et hora 11:09 Michael C. Jaeger scripsit:
I wondered if there are more persons using the ninka integration
in FOSSology, or ifnot using, find it important to have it
integrated in FOSSology? Kind regards, Michael
I’m not using it, mainly because of the license names mismatch.


cheers,
Matija
--
gsm: +386 41 849 552
www: http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: matija.suklje@...
sip: matija_suklje@...

Re: Ninka Usage Question

 

Hi all,

We're not using Ninka anymore since it is not included by default in the Docker builds.
I meant to re-test Ninka's results to determine if it was worth re-installing it, but haven't done it yet.

Nicolas



On 20/05/2019 11:09, Michael C. Jaeger wrote:

Hi,

since there is an issue about it:

https://github.com/fossology/fossology/issues/1355

I wondered if there are more persons using the ninka integration in FOSSology, or ifnot using, find it important to have it integrated in FOSSology?

Kind regards, Michael


-- 

Nicolas Toussaint
OAB - Orange Applications for Business - Lyon

Ninka Usage Question

Michael C. Jaeger
 

Hi,

since there is an issue about it:

https://github.com/fossology/fossology/issues/1355

I wondered if there are more persons using the ninka integration in FOSSology, or ifnot using, find it important to have it integrated in FOSSology?

Kind regards, Michael

Re: Issues with Bulk Recognitions remove license function

Michael C. Jaeger
 

Hello,

I am not sure, but I suspect you are not matching the bulk text phrase.

You can argue how to match. we have decided for the SPDX matching guidelines. And thus:

"I've tried to use the Bulk Recognition to simultaneously remove one and add another license."

is different from

"I've tried to use the Bulk Recognition to simultaneously remove one and add another license"

-> a dot attached to a word needs to be there otherwise it is not a 100% match.

Does this help? I am not sure because the first two bulk scan did not match neither, but it makes sense to test this first.

Kind regards, Michael

On 8. May 2019, at 12:04, Toni Päärni <toni.paarni@...> wrote:

Hi,

We are running: "Version: [3.5.0], Branch: [HEAD], Commit: [#171d4d] 2019/04/12 08:47 UTC built @ 2019/04/12 09:09 UTC". Has been done on the basis of binaries from the Fossology project: FOSSology-3.5.0-debian8jessie.tar.gz.

(We had an issue with installing first based on 9stretch, but completed the installation with 8jessie, as the platform was jessie. Not sure if this could have an impact. But the problem likely was same also earlier version 3.2.0RC, but unable to reproduce that now.)

Some further testing: just doing the remove-action with bulk-recognition does not work either. Addition works, but remove acts as if it was an addition by the bulk (see screenshot). In the screenshot, you can see also the bulk history. Those Dual-licence additions should be removals.

Best Regards
Toni Päärni

-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: Michael C. Jaeger [mailto:mcj@...]
Lähetetty: maanantai 6. toukokuuta 2019 18.38
Vastaanottaja: Toni Päärni
Kopio: fossology@...
Aihe: Re: [FOSSology] Issues with Bulk Recognitions remove license function

Hi,

may I ask for two things to help us:

* which version? (or how did you install it) (it is the grey text in the menu area)
* Would it be possible to share a screenshot of the Bulk Regocnition Panel just before your start the scan?

Kind regards, Michael

On 6. May 2019, at 17:01, Toni Päärni <toni.paarni@...> wrote:

Hi,

I've tried to use the Bulk Recognition to simultaneously remove one and add another license.
When doing this, the Bulk Recognition just adds both of the licenses and doesn't remove the other.
I would be very glad and interested to know why our Fossology is doing such a thing and how to fix it?

PS. I also have the same issue when just removing with the Bulk Recognition. It turns it to an "add license" for some reason.

Best regards
Toni Päärni



<Fossology print screen.jpg>

VS: [FOSSology] Issues with Bulk Recognitions remove license function

Toni Päärni
 

Hi,

We are running: "Version: [3.5.0], Branch: [HEAD], Commit: [#171d4d] 2019/04/12 08:47 UTC built @ 2019/04/12 09:09 UTC". Has been done on the basis of binaries from the Fossology project: FOSSology-3.5.0-debian8jessie.tar.gz.

(We had an issue with installing first based on 9stretch, but completed the installation with 8jessie, as the platform was jessie. Not sure if this could have an impact. But the problem likely was same also earlier version 3.2.0RC, but unable to reproduce that now.)

Some further testing: just doing the remove-action with bulk-recognition does not work either. Addition works, but remove acts as if it was an addition by the bulk (see screenshot). In the screenshot, you can see also the bulk history. Those Dual-licence additions should be removals.

Best Regards
Toni Päärni

-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: Michael C. Jaeger [mailto:mcj@...]
Lähetetty: maanantai 6. toukokuuta 2019 18.38
Vastaanottaja: Toni Päärni
Kopio: fossology@...
Aihe: Re: [FOSSology] Issues with Bulk Recognitions remove license function

Hi,

may I ask for two things to help us:

* which version? (or how did you install it) (it is the grey text in the menu area)
* Would it be possible to share a screenshot of the Bulk Regocnition Panel just before your start the scan?

Kind regards, Michael

On 6. May 2019, at 17:01, Toni Päärni <toni.paarni@...> wrote:

Hi,

I've tried to use the Bulk Recognition to simultaneously remove one and add another license.
When doing this, the Bulk Recognition just adds both of the licenses and doesn't remove the other.
I would be very glad and interested to know why our Fossology is doing such a thing and how to fix it?

PS. I also have the same issue when just removing with the Bulk Recognition. It turns it to an "add license" for some reason.

Best regards
Toni Päärni

Need to remove Debian packaging meta info from master branch

Gaurav Mishra
 

Hello all,

 

During our effort to publish FOSSology as a Debian package, we got few suggestions from the Debian community.

One of those suggestion is to remove the Debian packaging information (debian folder) from the master branch and put it into another branch like chore/debian/jessie.

 

This is done so to avoid conflicts as Debian maintainers will be editing this packaging information in the FOSSology mirror (hosted at Debian Sala). And any change in upstream can result in conflicts.

 

As this change will alter the packaging steps required by many of FOSSology users, we need your feedback.

 

I have opened an issue on GitHub for the same: https://github.com/fossology/fossology/issues/1341

 

Kindly respond either on this thread or on the GitHub issue if you have any concerns regarding the same.

With best regards,
Gaurav Mishra

Re: Issues with Bulk Recognitions remove license function

Michael C. Jaeger
 

Hi,

may I ask for two things to help us:

* which version? (or how did you install it) (it is the grey text in the menu area)
* Would it be possible to share a screenshot of the Bulk Regocnition Panel just before your start the scan?

Kind regards, Michael

On 6. May 2019, at 17:01, Toni Päärni <toni.paarni@...> wrote:

Hi,

I've tried to use the Bulk Recognition to simultaneously remove one and add another license.
When doing this, the Bulk Recognition just adds both of the licenses and doesn't remove the other.
I would be very glad and interested to know why our Fossology is doing such a thing and how to fix it?

PS. I also have the same issue when just removing with the Bulk Recognition. It turns it to an "add license" for some reason.

Best regards
Toni Päärni

Issues with Bulk Recognitions remove license function

Toni Päärni
 

Hi,

I've tried to use the Bulk Recognition to simultaneously remove one and add another license.
When doing this, the Bulk Recognition just adds both of the licenses and doesn't remove the other. 
I would be very glad and interested to know why our Fossology is doing such a thing and how to fix it?

PS. I also have the same issue when just removing with the Bulk Recognition. It turns it to an "add license" for some reason. 

Best regards
Toni Päärni

Re: Can't upload file from URL by fossology docker

leimaohui
 

Hi Gaurav

 

Thank you, it does work.

 

Best regards

Lei

 

From: Mishra, Gaurav [mailto:mishra.gaurav@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 11:15 AM
To: Lei, Maohui
Cc: fossology@...
Subject: Re: Can't upload file from URL by fossology docker

 

Hello Lei,

 

Frankly I have never used FOSSology behind proxy for "Upload from URL". But there is a proxy setting which you may use. For that, you need to edit the file "/usr/local/etc/fossology/fossology.conf" inside the docker container and set the respective "http_proxy" parameters.

 

Just restart the scheduler once after changing the file and wget_agent should pick the proxy settings from there.

 

Please let us know if the solution worked for you.

 

Thanks and regards,

Gaurav Mishra

 


From: fossology@... <fossology@...> on behalf of leimaohui <leimaohui@...>
Sent: 30 April 2019 07:41
To: fossology@...
Subject: [FOSSology] Can't upload file from URL by fossology docker

 

Hi,

I pulled a docker of fossology server. There is no problem if I upload file from localhost. But failed to upload from URL. The error log is as following:
---------------------------------------
2019-04-29 08:13:43 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: "FATAL wget_agent.c.383: upload 36 Download failed; Return code 4 from:   /usr/bin/wget -q --no-check-certificate --progress=dot -rc -np -e robots=off -P '/srv/fossology/repository/5918713fc379/wget/wget.260.dir' 'https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.samba.org%2Fftp%2Ftevent%2Ftevent-0.10.0.tar.gz&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cmishra.gaurav%40siemens.com%7C9fa77236c72b44edccbb08d6cd1294f5%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C1%7C636921877028109459&amp;sdata=%2FVX1twSbFuIIrqiiOnCn11HWYQ6dHwXpxJOgGf1vCJU%3D&amp;reserved=0' -l 0 -R index.html*   2>&1"
2019-04-29 08:13:43 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: agent failed with error code 12
2019-04-29 08:13:44 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: agent failed, code: 12
---------------------------------------

Proxy is necessary in my environmental, so I wonder if there is any special setting to enable for fossology docker that I don't know. The following is what I have done to solve this issue.
   * Set not use proxy for localhost and 127.0.0.1.
   * Set proxy for docker service by /etc/systemd/system/docker.service.d/http-proxy.conf.


Best regards
Lei Maohui




Re: Can't upload file from URL by fossology docker

Gaurav Mishra
 

Hello Lei,

Frankly I have never used FOSSology behind proxy for "Upload from URL". But there is a proxy setting which you may use. For that, you need to edit the file "/usr/local/etc/fossology/fossology.conf" inside the docker container and set the respective "http_proxy" parameters.

Just restart the scheduler once after changing the file and wget_agent should pick the proxy settings from there.

Please let us know if the solution worked for you.

Thanks and regards,
Gaurav Mishra


From: fossology@... <fossology@...> on behalf of leimaohui <leimaohui@...>
Sent: 30 April 2019 07:41
To: fossology@...
Subject: [FOSSology] Can't upload file from URL by fossology docker
 
Hi,

I pulled a docker of fossology server. There is no problem if I upload file from localhost. But failed to upload from URL. The error log is as following:
---------------------------------------
2019-04-29 08:13:43 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: "FATAL wget_agent.c.383: upload 36 Download failed; Return code 4 from:   /usr/bin/wget -q --no-check-certificate --progress=dot -rc -np -e robots=off -P '/srv/fossology/repository/5918713fc379/wget/wget.260.dir' 'https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.samba.org%2Fftp%2Ftevent%2Ftevent-0.10.0.tar.gz&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cmishra.gaurav%40siemens.com%7C9fa77236c72b44edccbb08d6cd1294f5%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C1%7C636921877028109459&amp;sdata=%2FVX1twSbFuIIrqiiOnCn11HWYQ6dHwXpxJOgGf1vCJU%3D&amp;reserved=0' -l 0 -R index.html*   2>&1"
2019-04-29 08:13:43 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: agent failed with error code 12
2019-04-29 08:13:44 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: agent failed, code: 12
---------------------------------------

Proxy is necessary in my environmental, so I wonder if there is any special setting to enable for fossology docker that I don't know. The following is what I have done to solve this issue.
   * Set not use proxy for localhost and 127.0.0.1.
   * Set proxy for docker service by /etc/systemd/system/docker.service.d/http-proxy.conf.


Best regards
Lei Maohui






Can't upload file from URL by fossology docker

leimaohui
 

Hi,

I pulled a docker of fossology server. There is no problem if I upload file from localhost. But failed to upload from URL. The error log is as following:
---------------------------------------
2019-04-29 08:13:43 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: "FATAL wget_agent.c.383: upload 36 Download failed; Return code 4 from: /usr/bin/wget -q --no-check-certificate --progress=dot -rc -np -e robots=off -P '/srv/fossology/repository/5918713fc379/wget/wget.260.dir' 'https://www.samba.org/ftp/tevent/tevent-0.10.0.tar.gz' -l 0 -R index.html* 2>&1"
2019-04-29 08:13:43 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: agent failed with error code 12
2019-04-29 08:13:44 wget_agent [0] :: JOB[239].wget_agent[260.localhost]: agent failed, code: 12
---------------------------------------

Proxy is necessary in my environmental, so I wonder if there is any special setting to enable for fossology docker that I don't know. The following is what I have done to solve this issue.
* Set not use proxy for localhost and 127.0.0.1.
* Set proxy for docker service by /etc/systemd/system/docker.service.d/http-proxy.conf.


Best regards
Lei Maohui

Google Summer of Code

Supriya Palli <supriyaharesh@...>
 

Hello,

 

My name is Supriya Palli and I am a first-year Computer Science B.S. student at Florida State University. I currently finishing up a C++ course in Object Oriented Programming and am looking for ways to continue my learning in C++ and other technologies over the summer. I noticed that some of the projects you have listed for Google Summer of Code include C++ as a skill, but I am not sure I would meet the other skill requirements. Are there any specific projects you would recommend for beginners? Or any projects I could contribute to outside of the Google Summer of Code program?

 

Thank You,
Supriya Palli

Beginner

Omar Mohamed <omarmohamed168@...>
 

Hi,

Hope this finds you well.

I'm a sophomore computer engineering student, I learned C from Harvard edx course (CS50) and i finished all of there problem sets and I'm taking right now a C++ course at my university (I'll finish it by end of the semester).
 I'm asking how to begin with your company if I'm a beginner at C ? And if this is not possible what should I do now to be eligible the next summer in similar projects ? 

Thank you.

GSOC 2019 application updates

Michael C. Jaeger
 

hello,
 
just a few updates on the GSOC 2019 application. We have a issue where most of the conversation is happening right now:
 
 
You can find our proposals here:
 
 
So what to do?
 
If you are an interested student, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us and ask your questions that you would need to submit an application. Furthermore there is a good deal of issues (see also label “ready for newbies”) that you could try to have a look at to submit your first pull request.
 
If you are interested in mentoring, please let us know.
 
If you would know students who might be interested in submitting an application, please forward this e-mail.
 
Kind regards, Michael
 
 

Re: Not recognizing "SPDX-License-Identifier:" with SPDX expressions in files

thuy.tran.xh@...
 

Hi Gaurav, Raino, Michael,

Thank you very much for your information.
Please kindly refer to my attached file or you can download it at https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/include/uapi/linux/a.out.h
I'm a newbie to the FOSSology/SPDX. So, I got confused about "Concluded License" in https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.ihv636
I understand what the columns Scanner Results and Edited Results mean in FOSSology.
The way I understood it is that the scanner results correspond to "LicenseInfoInFile" and the edited results to "LicenseConcluded" by manual.
So, I will make a lot of efforts to conclude the license for each file.

Hence, Could we automate filling out "LicenseConcluded" field if the file have a valid SPDX License Expression as defined in "SPDX-License-Identifier" ?
e.g. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

Thank you very much,

Best regards, Tran

Re: Not recognizing "SPDX-License-Identifier:" with SPDX expressions in files

Michael C. Jaeger
 

+1

 

thanks raino for this clarification I did not understand it this way, I think the person who brought the issue up, cited the wrong issue number then, it should have been:

 

https://github.com/fossology/fossology/issues/687

 

(not #932). To contribute to an answer to this, there is heavy work in progress, partly in:

 

https://github.com/fossology/fossology/pull/842

 

but there are also changes required in the way FOSSology handles multi licensing. I am not sure if there are frequent occurrences of nested expressions so far.

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

 

From: fossology@... [mailto:fossology@...] On Behalf Of raino
Sent: Mittwoch, 13. März 2019 10:50
To: Mishra, Gaurav (CT RDA DS AA DTS CNP CT)
Cc: fossology@...
Subject: Re: [FOSSology] Not recognizing "SPDX-License-Identifier:" with SPDX expressions in files

 

Hi Gaurav,

currently the issue you pointed out has been taken care in a reporting phase.

For example nomos detects "Dual-license" that is never included in license reports but in a report

a keyword OR is used. For example nomos: AFL-2.1,Dual-license,GPL-2.0;

report: AFL-2.1 OR GPL-2.0.

In the same way exceptions are currently handled in the reporting phase. I am using a customized

reporting tool that identifies all SPDX exceptions and adds WITH keyword in reports.

 

I agree that it would be good to have also those keywords (AND, OR, WITH) visible in a license

view. My view, however, is that it should not be included in license scanners but some other

approach should be taken.

 

Best regards

Raino

 

ke 13. maalisk. 2019 klo 11.12 Gaurav Mishra (mishra.gaurav@...) kirjoitti:

Hello Tran,

As per the screenshot attached by you, I can see that file a.out.h contains SPDX license identifier: SDPX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note and nomos has successfully identified GPL-2,0 and Linux-syscall-note (also confirmed by the user).

I can not understand the point you are trying to make here. Can you please help us understand the issue more by sharing the expected result and the file you have tested the agents with?

Thanks and regards, Gaurav Mishra