Fix and clarify license in crate metadata and add missing license files #1308
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Your analysis checks out. Thanks! |
|
Great - thank you! 🎉 |
|
It looks like new releases of this project are currently getting pushed from the dev-0.32.x branch. Would it be possible to cherry-pick this change onto that branch as well, so that it actually starts showing up in releases? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I am responsible for packaging some crates from this project for Fedora Linux, and have noticed that there are some issues with the license metadata / missing license files in published crates. I see that there are also reported issues for this (#912, #972, #1249), and attempted to fix the issues reported there, and some issues I noticed myself:
It appears that the project was intentionally relicensed from BSD-3-Clause to Apache-2.0 in commit d81a895, but this was, at least in part, not updated in crate metadata. This results in crates.io and tools like cargo-license to show the wrong license for some crates in this project. To address this, I adapted the
package.licensefield in Cargo.toml files for thenalgebra, andnalgebra-glmaccordingly.The
nalgebra-lapackcrate is MIT licensed (there is a license file for the MIT license included, and the documentation agrees), but the crate metadata claims the crate isBSD-3-Clauselicensed. Maybe this is a copy-paste error from when the crate was originally imported? To address this discrepancy, I changed thepackage.licensefield in Cargo.toml fromBSD-3-ClausetoMIT.One of the terms of the Apache-2.0 license is that any (re)distributed sources contain a copy of the license text. This is currently not the case for the
nalgebra-glm,nalgebra-macros, andnalgebra-sparsecrates. This is problematic for Linux distributions that package these crates, and potentially also for publishing them on crates.io. Adding a symbolic link to the LICENSE file from the project's root directory should causecargo package/cargo publishto properly include this file when publishing.