Add "sa" as valid license and map "publicdomain" to "pdm"

[dhruvkb]

Description

Some files specify the license as "publicdomain". Our standard slug for public domain content is "pdm".

Some files in the API have licenses like "publicdomain" and "sa". This PR adds these licenses to the openverse-attribution package. This PR also adds some exception handling around the use of License (it should not be necessary anymore, but still).

A more comprehensive update for License is #4250, this PR is the baseline fix that will enable us to deploy the API again.

Testing Instructions

0. Change some rows in the DB to have "publicdomain" or "sa" as the license.
1. Go to their detail page.
2. You should not get 500 errors.

Checklist

• My pull request has a descriptive title (not a vague title likeUpdate index.md).
• My pull request targets the default branch of the repository (main) or a parent feature branch.
• My commit messages follow best practices.
• My code follows the established code style of the repository.
• I added or updated tests for the changes I made (if applicable).
• I added or updated documentation (if applicable).
• I tried running the project locally and verified that there are no visible errors.
• I ran the DAG documentation generator (if applicable).

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
1 Letterman Drive
Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA, 94129

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

[obulat]

I queried the ES index for license values we used. Do we correctly handle all of them, @dhruvkb ?

{
  "hits": {
    "total": {
      "value": 10000,
      "relation": "gte"
    },
  },
  "aggregations": {
    "unique_licenses": {
      "buckets": [
        {
          "key": "by-nc",
          "doc_count": 494378894
        },
        {
          "key": "by-nc-sa",
          "doc_count": 287575564
        },
        {
          "key": "by",
          "doc_count": 268183052
        },
        {
          "key": "by-nc-nd",
          "doc_count": 252172663
        },
        {
          "key": "by-sa",
          "doc_count": 215586799
        },
        {
          "key": "by-nd",
          "doc_count": 54390016
        },
        {
          "key": "cc0",
          "doc_count": 52675005
        },
        {
          "key": "pdm",
          "doc_count": 27846971
        },
        {
          "key": "sampling+",
          "doc_count": 22399
        },
        {
          "key": "publicdomain",
          "doc_count": 21335
        },
        {
          "key": "sa",
          "doc_count": 11723
        },
        {
          "key": "nc-sampling+",
          "doc_count": 5898
        }
      ]
    }
  }
}

[dhruvkb]

We also do not handle "sa". The closest to that is "by-sa". All others are now handled. Should I update the PR for "sa" → "by-sa" as well?

[sentry-io]

Sentry Issue: OPENVERSE-API-DB

[stacimc]

Is this a problem that should be addressed in the catalog where we're setting those slugs? Or is that the long-term plan and this is temporary?

I'm also curious about mapping sa to by-sa. In the catalog we set these for https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/2.0/jp, both of which I get results for (although there's a notice that they're retired). I'm not really familiar with how this works, but is it accurate to map that to by-sa? Should we just not ingest those records, instead?

[dhruvkb]

Thanks for catching and explaining this @stacimc because mapping "sa" to "by-sa" would not have been right! I have updated the code in 179182f to treat "sa" accurately as a valid, but deprecated license.

[obulat]

@dhruvkb, I thought this could be a quick fix that would enable us to deploy the API without reverting the pdm changes. However, after @stacimc's note, I realize that we should carefully review the handling of licenses to ensure that we don't accidentally change the values.
Catalog has a very comprehensive list of license pair and license url correspondences, and publicdomain there is a valid license (mark) value: https://github.com/WordPress/openverse/blob/2051936d08b31c024873051fd3b7725635579e47/catalog/dags/common/licenses/constants.py
I think we should move it to the attribution package, and update it to accept all possible values.

[obulat]

LGTM!

[zackkrida]

LGTM for the sake of our deployments. I would generally prefer we use license instead of lic in the model and serializer but that's a style nitpick and not blocking.

[dhruvkb]

license shadows built-in name.

Stale