« Because it's Friday: The borders have changed. Film at 11. | Main | Uber overtakes taxis in New York City »

April 16, 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I am pretty concerned by the consortium proposal of an automatic package license violation detection tool. There is a wide array of legal opinions with regard to what is or isn't allowable, with much grey area. Very little has been tested in a court of law so solid precedent is difficult to come by. For example, the FSF has its own interpretation of "derivative" that many lawyers disagree with.

So whose legal opinion will get enshrined in the tool, and for what country's laws?

When programmers see a problem, they'll try to use code to solve it, but that isn't always possible or wise.

@Ian, It's definitely a thorny issue. I believe the primary goal is to raise potential issues to developers, but solving them is a much trickier problem as you point out. This topic is being discussed in the Code Coverage Working Group, and your input would be very welcome!

@david, I'd be happy to provide input. I don't exactly see where to do so in the link, and didn't see where in the covr package these checks were being done. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail any time on this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Revolutions Blog




Got comments or suggestions for the blog editor?
Email David Smith.
Follow revodavid on Twitter Follow David on Twitter: @revodavid
Get this blog via email with Blogtrottr
‚Äč