Currently, scan-copyrights (which uses licensecheck under the hood) is used in Apertis to scan copyright/license notices. This tool has some downsides, thus we are evaluating to use scancode-toolkit instead. A comparison of licensecheck vs scancode is available on the ScanCode’s website, TL;DR: scancode is more accurate but slower.

scancode-toolkit has an option to export results as DEP5 format (see GH#472) which is the format currently use by Apertis license tooling. That means, scancode-toolkit is potentially compatible with the rest of the Apertis licensing tooling.

Scancode installation

scancode is not available as Debian package (GH#1580 and GH#3253) nor as a Docker image (GH#3026), but a Dockerfile is provided by upstream. That means, we can create our own Docker image, or we can reuse the OSS Review Toolkit Docker image which integrates scancode. Since the ORT Docker image used in our pipeline is outdated, it would be easier for now to decouple scancode from the ORT docker image to avoid having to use an outdated scancode (scancode used in the ORT image is one year old.

Here are the steps to build a docker image:

1
2
3
4
5

git clone https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit
cd scancode-toolkit
LATEST_VER=v32.0.8
git checkout $LATEST_VER
docker build --tag scancode-toolkit --tag scancode-toolkit:$LATEST_VER .

Scancode output format

Scancode is able to write its output in different formats:

docker run  scancode-toolkit --help
...
  output formats:
    --json FILE             Write scan output as compact JSON to FILE.
    --json-pp FILE          Write scan output as pretty-printed JSON to FILE.
    --json-lines FILE       Write scan output as JSON Lines to FILE.
    --yaml FILE             Write scan output as YAML to FILE.
    --csv FILE              [DEPRECATED] Write scan output as CSV to FILE. The
                            --csv option is deprecated and will be replaced by
                            new CSV and tabular output formats in the next
                            ScanCode release. Visit
                            https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/issues/3043
                            to provide inputs and feedback.
    --html FILE             Write scan output as HTML to FILE.
    --custom-output FILE    Write scan output to FILE formatted with the custom
                            Jinja template file.
    --debian FILE           Write scan output in machine-readable Debian
                            copyright format to FILE.
    --custom-template FILE  Use this Jinja template FILE as a custom template.
    --cyclonedx FILE        Write scan output in CycloneDX JSON format to FILE.
    --cyclonedx-xml FILE    Write scan output in CycloneDX XML format to FILE.
    --spdx-rdf FILE         Write scan output as SPDX RDF to FILE.
    --spdx-tv FILE          Write scan output as SPDX Tag/Value to FILE.
...

These formats include:

• Debian DEP5 format, the one already in use with Apertis licensing tooling.
• YAML, widely used in Apertis and used to teach scan-copyrights detection license issues (i.e. debian/apertis/copyright.yml).
• SPDX, open standard for communicating SBOM information.
• CycloneDX, another SBOM standard.

Initially, it should be simpler to continue using the Debian DEP5 since the whole Apertis licensing tooling is using it. But for a long term plan, we may want to switch to a more widely used format like SPDX or CycloneDX which are also compatible with ORT and other tools. This should make the Apertis license/SBOM processes more flexible.

Select Apertis packages to evaluate scancode

Let’s use packages that are wrongly detected by scan-copyrights (i.e. packages with the use of override-license in debian/apertis/copyright.yml.

Here is a small random list of packages based on a local grep of override-license: debianutils, libarchive, libgdata, libunistring, libusb, nss, nss-pem, openjpeg2, openssl xorg-server.

Run scan-copyrights as gold standard

First, scan-copyrights is run on the package in a v2025dev2 VM:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11

# Because of the use of "override-license" in debian/apertis/copyright.yml
LIST_PKGS=" debianutils libarchive libgdata libunistring libusb nss nss-pem openjpeg2 openssl xorg-server "
# Adding other well known pkgs
LIST_PKGS+=" pipewire rust-coreutils "
for PKG in $LIST_PKGS:
do
	git clone https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/${PKG}.git
	cd ${PKG}
	/usr/bin/time -f "%e" scan-copyrights > ../${PKG}-scan-copyright 2> ../${PKG}-time
	cd ..
done

Run scancode

Now, scancode is run by excluding debian/copyright and debian/apertis/copyright because they can easily confuse scancode (see GH#2885).

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

# Because of the use of "override-license" in debian/apertis/copyright.yml
LIST_PKGS=" debianutils libarchive libgdata libunistring libusb nss nss-pem openjpeg2 openssl xorg-server "
# Adding other well known pkgs
LIST_PKGS+=" pipewire rust-coreutils firefox-esr"
for PKG in $LIST_PKGS:
do
	git clone https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/${PKG}.git
	cd ${PKG}

	# DEP5 output
	docker run -v $PWD/:/project scancode-toolkit \
	   --copyright --license --license-text --strip-root \
	   --ignore */debian/copyright --ignore */debian/apertis/copyright \
	   --ignore */debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-copyright \
	   -n 8 --debian /project/debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-copyright \
	   /project/.

	# YAML output
	docker run -v $PWD/:/project scancode-toolkit \
	   --copyright --license --license-text --strip-root \
	   --ignore */debian/copyright --ignore */debian/apertis/copyright \
	   --ignore */debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-copyright \
	   -n 8 \
	   --yaml /project/debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-copyright-yaml \
	   /project/.

	cd ..
done

Analysis time

This analysis was performed on a XPS13-9310 laptop with a CPU i7-1185G7 (@3.00GHz×8), 16 GB RAM and an SSD hard disk.

• firefox-esr is one of the biggest packages in Apertis, but is not in the target repository. Thus, we wouldn’t have to analyze it with scancode, but it is used here to evaluate scancode in the worst cases.

• [1] scancode ran on firefox-esr for ~ 23 hours and 30 mins before being OOM killed. It seems, the scan was over and scancode was processing data to generate its output file when it was killed. Its scanning parallel processes have stopped, only the main process was running and the used RAM was at ~ 3 GB (of 16 GB available) about 10 mins before OOM.

• While doing the analysis with 8 parallel processes, all of them were at 100% during the entire analysis time, so at least the CPU is a bottleneck.

Analysis time with –processes from 1 to 8

From the scancode options:

-n, --processes INTEGER

    Scan <input> using n parallel processes. [Default: 1]

This option allows to use several processes for scanning files.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14

PKG="debianutils"
git clone https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/${PKG}.git
cd ${PKG}

for N in {1..8}
do
	# YAML output
	docker run -v $PWD/:/project scancode-toolkit \
	   --copyright --license --license-text --strip-root \
	   --ignore */debian/copyright --ignore */debian/apertis/* \
	   -n ${N} \
	   --yaml /project/debian/apertis/${PKG}-${N}-scancode-copyright-yaml \
	   /project/.
done

Adding more parallel processes improve the scanning time, but it seems we are reaching a threshold at ~ 4 parallel processes where adding more processes only slightly improves the scanning time. This may be due to the fact that the tested package is small. For a bigger package like firefox-esr, this threshold may be higher and it could be beneficial to have more parallel processes.

Analysis time with –timeout X

From the scancode options:

--timeout FLOAT

    Stop scanning a file if scanning takes longer than a timeout in seconds. [Default: 120]

This option allows to avoid getting stuck on a file for too long.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14

PKG="debianutils"
git clone https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/${PKG}.git
cd ${PKG}

for N in 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 30 10
do
	# YAML output
	docker run -v $PWD/:/project scancode-toolkit \
	   --copyright --license --license-text --strip-root \
	   --ignore */debian/copyright --ignore */debian/apertis/* \
	   --timeout ${N} -n 8 \
	   --yaml /project/debian/apertis/${PKG}-${N}-scancode-copyright-yaml \
	   /project/.
done

Decreasing the timeout per file seems to be quite efficient to reduce the scanning time, but since some files are no longer fully scanned, a more comprehensive comparison of detected licenses should be done to ensure we are not loosing too much data.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12

PKG="firefox-esr"
git clone https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/${PKG}.git
cd ${PKG}

date
docker run -v $PWD/:/project scancode-toolkit \
   --copyright --license --license-text --strip-root \
   --ignore */debian/copyright --ignore */debian/apertis/* \
   --timeout 10 -n 8 \
   --yaml /project/debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-timeout-10-copyright-yaml \
   /project/.
date

Analysis time with –max-in-memory 0

From the scancode options:

--max-in-memory INTEGER

    Maximum number of files and directories scan details kept in memory during a
    scan. Additional files and directories scan details above this number are
    cached on-disk rather than in memory. Use 0 to use unlimited memory and
    disable on-disk caching. Use -1 to use only on-disk caching. [Default: 10000]

Based on an upstream issue (see GH#1014), the disk cache seems to be really slow.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

# Because of the use of "override-license" in debian/apertis/copyright.yml
LIST_PKGS=" debianutils libarchive libgdata libunistring libusb nss nss-pem openjpeg2 openssl xorg-server "
# Adding other well known pkgs
LIST_PKGS+=" pipewire rust-coreutils firefox-esr"
for PKG in $LIST_PKGS:
do
	git clone https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/${PKG}.git
	cd ${PKG}
	# YAML output
	docker run -v $PWD/:/project scancode-toolkit \
	   --copyright --license --license-text --strip-root \
	   --ignore */debian/copyright --ignore */debian/apertis/* \
	   --max-in-memory 0 -n 8 \
	   --yaml /project/debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-copyright-yaml \
	   /project/.
	cd ..
done

Passing --max-in-memory 0 to scancode doesn’t improve scanning time since these results are of the same order of magnitude (+/- random fluctuation) to the ones without this option.

Analysis time with ONLY –license

i.e. without --copyright --license-text

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11

PKG="nss"
git clone https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/${PKG}.git
cd ${PKG}

# YAML output
docker run -v $PWD/:/project scancode-toolkit \
   --license --strip-root \
   --ignore */debian/copyright --ignore */debian/apertis/* \
   -n 8 \
   --yaml /project/debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-ONLYlicense-copyright-yaml \
   /project/.

Do not scan copyrights (i.e. only license) decrease the scanning time

Reliability of detected license

Some of debian/apertis/copyright.yaml files used are no longer required since the Bookworm rebase, so all packages analyzed don’t have a problematic file which can be used to compare scan-copyrights and scancode.

• [0] scan-copyrights has improved in Bookworm.
• [1] Retrospective change: https://www.netbsd.org/about/redistribution.html#why2clause
• [1.1] BSD-2-Clause-NetBSD and/or BSD-2-clause and/or BSD-3-clause and/or FSFUL and/or FSFULLR and/or GPL-2 and/or LGPL-2 and/or X11
• [2] Simplified upstream with bookworm, debian/apertis/copyright.yaml outdated.
• [3] A second license is later in the code

scancode is better to deal with complex licenses combinations, especially because it scans the whole file and not only the first lines. Moreover, it reports all licenses detected with a matching score (available in the YAML output).

No license deduction for project and folder

While scan-copyrights is able to perform some deduction of license/copyright for a project and/or folder, scancode only performs scanning at file level.

For instance, scan-copyrights gives the following result for openssl:

Files: *
Copyright: 1998-2023, The OpenSSL Project
 1995-1998, Eric A. Young, Tim J. Hudson
License: Apache-2.0

...

Files: crypto/ec/asm/*
Copyright: 1998-2023, The OpenSSL Project Authors.
License: Apache-2.0 and/or OpenSSL

This result give us the information that the project is under the license Apache-2.0 and files in crypto/ec/asm/* are under Apache-2.0 and/or OpenSSL licenses.

This behavior allows to assign a license to files by inheriting it from the license of the project (or from the higher level folder’s license).

Some projects don’t add license/copyright information in all of their files, which could be annoying for scancode as it won’t be able to detect the right license. We would need to add this logic in scancode or in another Apertis script (like ci-license-scan?).

Some related upstream issues:

• Proposal: Scan deduction and summarization
• Primary license detections not shown properly in debian_copyright

Statistic about files without detected license

The yaml file generated by scancode is sometimes malformed due to --license-text (see #GH3219, but seems not enough).

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

# Because of the use of "override-license" in debian/apertis/copyright.yml
LIST_PKGS=" debianutils libarchive libgdata libunistring libusb nss nss-pem openjpeg2 openssl xorg-server "
# Adding other well known pkgs
LIST_PKGS+=" pipewire rust-coreutils firefox-esr"
for PKG in $LIST_PKGS:
do
	git clone https://gitlab.apertis.org/pkg/${PKG}.git
	cd ${PKG}

	# YAML output
	docker run -v $PWD/:/project scancode-toolkit \
	   --license --strip-root \
	   --ignore */debian/copyright --ignore */debian/apertis/copyright \
	   --ignore */debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-copyright \
	   -n 8 \
	   --yaml /project/debian/apertis/${PKG}-scancode-copyright-yaml \
	   /project/.

	cd ..
done

DEP5 invalid format

scancode generates malformed files stanza. As defined in the debian/copyright specification, each files stanza is composed by mandatory fields (i.e. Files, Copyright and License) and one optional field (i.e. Comment). For instance:

Files: Xext/sleepuntil.h
Copyright: 1993-2003, The XFree86 Project, Inc.
License: Expat

When scancode is not able to define a copyright or a license for a file, then it creates a stanza with only the Files field whereas scan-copyrights fills the missing field with UNKNOWN. Here is an example of malformed stanza by scancode:

Files: CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

Here is another example from scan-copyrights where a missing field is filled:

Files: xkb/Makefile.in
Copyright: 1994-2021, Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License: UNKNOWN

This issue should easy be fixable in scancode, by filing missing field with an UNKNOWN value.

scancode output format

Support of DEP5 format is incomplete in scancode, but bigger issues can probably be easily fixed.

YAML format gives way more information like: lines of the detected licenses, the pattern, a score of matching, several identifiers of the licenses detected, etc. Having all of these information may be useful for future enhancement of Apertis license tooling.

Summary

Their different approaches in file analysis explains why scancode is slower, but is able to detect way more licenses than scan-copyrights (see upstream comparison):

• licensecheck is “a Perl script using hand-crafted regex patterns to find typical copyright statements and about 50 common licenses”;

• scancode’s detection “is based on a (large) number of license full texts (~2100) and license notices, mentions and variants (~32,000) and is data-driven as opposed to regex-driven. It detects and reports exactly where license text is found in a file. Just throw in more license texts to improve the detection.”

Required resources for analysis

scancode is ~50 times slower than scan-copyrights. scancode requires much more RAM than scan-copyrights.

License scan accuracy

• scan-copyrights has improved between Bullseye and Bookworm.
• scancode has a better detection for complex cases.

Output format

• DEP5 incomplete support, but already used by apertis license tooling.
• YAML seems a sensible alternative since it provides many more information, but would require to adapt apertis license tooling to this new format.

Outdated debian/apertis/copyright.yaml

This file would need to be refreshed in Apertis packages since the Bookworm rebase. scan-copyrights is smarter and some packages have fixed their licensing issues.

Proposed plan

Some general guidelines:

• We need to come with a progressive approach, this is not something that will happen from one day to the other
• Most of the packages are small and should take a reasonable amount of time to scan
• We should be able to selectively disable scancode when necessary
• We can add additional logic to only scan the files that have changed since last scan

Proposed plan to use scancode instead of scan-copyrights:

1. Update the docker image used to generate ORT reports in order to reuse it for scancode. Apertis uses a handcrafted docker image to generate ORT reports, since this image already contains scancode, it’s possible to reuse it to run scancode. The first step is to switch to an up-to-date image provided by OR. This step will requite to adjust some scripts use by Apertis including the template used to generate ORT reports.
2. Fix the DEP5 format created by scancode by adding missing mandatory fields. Scancode generates report in the DEP5 format, unfortunately, mandatory fields are missing when the copyright/license is not detected (see GH#3714). Instead, scancode should fill missing field with UNKNOWN or no-info-found as done by scan-copyrights.
3. Add support of “license deduction for project and folder” to scancode. scancode is unable to deduce a license for a whole project/folder based on the license of other files. Without this feature, ~ 50% files will have a missing license which is a regression compared to scan-copyrights. This task consists in adding a logic to scancode to deduce a license for a folder and/or project.
4. Add a new job running scancode to the ci-package-builder pipeline in parallel to the current scan-licenses job using scan-copyrights.
5. Generate a new scancode report for all packages in target using the job added in the previous step.
6. In the SBOM logic, add preference to use the scancode report if available otherwise use the one from scan-copyrights.

Some other tasks can be done in parallel:

• Investigate how to use caching to avoid scanning files already scanned in a previous run.
• Investigate how to improve performance of scancode (speed and RAM usage).

References

• scancode-toolkit