A Method to Detect License Inconsistencies in Large-Scale Open Source Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reuse of free and open source software (FOSS) components is becoming more and more popular. They usually contain one or more software licenses describing the requirements and conditions which should be followed when been reused. Licenses are usually written in the header of source code files as program comments. Removing or modifying the license header by re-distributors will result in the inconsistency of license with its ancestor, and may potentially cause license infringement. But to the best of our knowledge, no research has been devoted to investigate such kind of license infringements nor license inconsistencies. In this paper, we describe and categorize different types of license inconsistencies and propose a feasible method to detect them. Then we apply this method to Debian 7.5 and present the license inconsistencies found in it. With a manual analysis, we summarized various reasons behind these license inconsistencies, some of which imply license infringement and require the attention from the developers. This analysis also exposes the difficulty to discover license infringements, highlighting the usefulness of finding and maintaining source code provenance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".