-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 556
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
LicenseRef-scancode-proprietary-license is reported for correct BSD3-Clause #3922
Comments
I suspect the problem here is that the rule text is much too long.
(note the not) |
Reference: #3922 Reported-by: Martin Ba @bilbothebaggins Signed-off-by: Ayan Sinha Mahapatra <[email protected]>
@bilbothebaggins Thanks for the report. I ran the same scan with SCTK latest (v32.2.1 in contrast to your v32.1) and this seems to be fixed there as I do not get any wrong match there, attaching the result file here for your review:
Moreover, I'm also adjusting a couple rules to avoid similar issues:
Required phrases in rules are words which are required to be present and matched to match with that rule, this reduces false positives in approximate detections. Some work is also ongoing at #3254 do mark required phrases across all rules automatically, to reduce false positive detections like this in SCTK. |
Description
I am scanning a textual version of https://licenses.nuget.org/BSD-3-Clause and I'm getting a proprietary-license hit!
How To Reproduce
Scan Text File:
with this command:
This results in:
where clearly the rule https://github.com/aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit/blob/develop/src/licensedcode/data/rules/proprietary-license_890.RULE should not actually match. NO "not permitted" as far as I can see.
Maybe the "minimum_coverage: 99" in the rule is the problem, when the only difference is the "not" ?
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: