Implement the OSADL license compliance matrix as rules

[sschuberth]

Please have a look at the individual commit messages for the details.

Note to the reviewers: Please do not put too much effort into reviewing the (intermediate) CSV-based implementation, as I'm switching to a JSON-based implementation in later commits (the JSON file was just published within the last day, that's why I didn't use that approach earlier; but I'd also like to keep the CSV implementation in the Git history for reference).

[sschuberth]

Why is there not documentation update in this PR?

Simply because I already spent way too much time on this side-project due to the DSL / scripting improvements done as a preparation. I currently have no energy left for docs.

[dgutson]

How can we contribute to get this merged?

[sschuberth]

I meanwhile was able to clarify how transitive dependencies are supposed to be looked up in the matrix and will revive this a PR after my vacation, in the week from Aug. 15.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Base: 57.86% // Head: 57.86% // No change to project coverage :thumbsup:

Coverage data is based on head (26d2ad8) compared to base (26d2ad8). Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

:exclamation: Current head 26d2ad8 differs from pull request most recent head eced14b. Consider uploading reports for the commit eced14b to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #4977   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     57.86%   57.86%           
  Complexity     2040     2040           
=========================================
  Files           322      322           
  Lines         18698    18698           
  Branches       3838     3838           
=========================================
  Hits          10819    10819           
  Misses         6822     6822           
  Partials       1057     1057           

Flag	Coverage Δ
funTest-analyzer-docker	74.69% <0.00%> (ø)
funTest-non-analyzer	50.45% <0.00%> (ø)
test	27.51% <0.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[mnonnenmacher]

@sschuberth Is this up for review again?

[sschuberth]

@sschuberth Is this up for review again?

Not yet. I realized I first need to implement a rule that operates on each project (and it's transitive dependencies).

[sschuberth]

@sschuberth Is this up for review again?

Not yet. I realized I first need to implement a rule that operates on each project (and it's transitive dependencies).

Now it's up for review again. I still left some intermediate commits in the history to highlight the evolution.

[sschuberth]

FYI, I'm waiting for a bug in the OSADL matrix to get fixed before moving this again out of draft state.

[dgutson]

FYI, I'm waiting for a bug in the OSADL matrix to get fixed before moving this again out of draft state.

@sschuberth could you please provide the link if it is in the issue tracker?

[sschuberth]

FYI, I'm waiting for a bug in the OSADL matrix to get fixed before moving this again out of draft state.

@sschuberth could you please provide the link if it is in the issue tracker?

The bug we discovered was reported via @LeChasseur and I don't have a link.

[sschuberth]

FYI, I'm waiting for a bug in the OSADL matrix to get fixed before moving this again out of draft state.

@sschuberth could you please provide the link if it is in the issue tracker?

The bug we discovered was reported via @LeChasseur and I don't have a link.

The bugs (there were actually multiple related ones) were fixed in the OSADL matrix dated "2022-10-18 16:03". I've updated my PR accordingly and will move it out of draft state again.

[sschuberth]

@fviernau @mnonnenmacher @tsteenbe please have another look. Things I'd like to do in a follow-up PR:

1. Implement the second form of check.
2. Add dedicated docs for this new feature.

[dgutson]

@sschuberth sorry I was confused with this issue. How can we use this? CC @franco0700 again...

[sschuberth]

See: https://github.com/oss-review-toolkit/ort/blob/218c55fd43854850e094066ca4869c984aee4ccc/evaluator/src/main/resources/rules/osadl.rules.kts#L20-L25