Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Thomas Wolter

dblp:354/8469 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-9036-8033ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software maintenance and evolution · 67% Empirical software engineering · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › software ecosystems
license compliance
0.712023
Open Source License Inconsistencies on GitHub · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.712023
Open Source License Inconsistencies on GitHub · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023
Software maintenance and evolution
software ecosystems
0.712023
Open Source License Inconsistencies on GitHub · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2023
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Open Source License Inconsistencies on GitHub
abstract
Almost all software, open or closed, builds on open source software and therefore needs to comply with the license obligations of the open source code. Not knowing which licenses to comply with poses a legal danger to anyone using open source software. This article investigates the extent of inconsistencies between licenses declared by an open source project at the top level of the repository and the licenses found in the code. We analyzed a sample of 1,000 open source GitHub repositories. We find that about half of the repositories did not fully declare all licenses found in the code. Of these, approximately 10% represented a permissive vs. copyleft license mismatch. Furthermore, existing tools cannot fully identify licences. We conclude that users of open source code should not just look at the declared licenses of the open source code they intend to use, but rather examine the software to understand its actual licenses.
Thomas Wolter, Ann Barcomb, Dirk Riehle, Nikolay Harutyunyan
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.1