File is BCP 78 or Simplified BSD? Lintian says BCP 78

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

File is BCP 78 or Simplified BSD? Lintian says BCP 78

Nicholas D Steeves
Dear Debian Legal Team,

I am wondering if Lintian correctly detected a file's copyright as BCP
78, or if it's a false alarm.  I want to believe that it's a false
alarm, but have submitted a patch to make the package dfsg-free in
case it is not a false positive (Bug #868258).

The file in question is btrfs-progs/tests/sha224-256.c
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/master/tests/sha224-256.c

I am writing to you because it seems like this might be a matter of
interpretation.  eg: that the official specification is BCP 78, but
that the code samples are Simplified BSD.  It might also be necessary
to consult two other files introduced in the same commit.  Here is
that commit:

https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/commit/4ddd6055c333932b561046ad1d41234d773246d2

These hashing algorithms are used to tests/fssum.c, and fssum is used
in tests/misc-tests/019-receive-clones-on-munted-subvol/test.sh.  If
you're interested here is the upstream description of the test:
# Test that an incremental send operation works when in both snapshots there are
# two directory inodes that have the same number but different generations and
# have an entry with the same name that corresponds to different inodes in each
# snapshot

I believe this test was written to test for cases where incremental
send | receive operations could result in file system corruption.  Of
course, we could trust upstream to run these tests themselves, but my
understanding of the autopkgtest initiative was that this is exactly
the sort of tests we ought to be running.

Sincerely,
Nicholas

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: File is BCP 78 or Simplified BSD? Lintian says BCP 78

Ian Jackson-2
Nicholas D Steeves writes ("File is BCP 78 or Simplified BSD?  Lintian says BCP 78"):
> I am wondering if Lintian correctly detected a file's copyright as BCP
> 78, or if it's a false alarm.  I want to believe that it's a false
> alarm, but have submitted a patch to make the package dfsg-free in
> case it is not a false positive (Bug #868258).

It's a false alarm.  I think the file is entirely "Code Components"
which the text itself says is released under the "simplified BSD"
licence, and it references sha.h, which is here
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/master/tests/sha.h

It would be best to tidy up by getting rid of the misleading BCP78
boilerplate, which doesn't apply to the code, only to the rest of the
document (none of which seems to be present in sha224-256.c at least).

> The file in question is btrfs-progs/tests/sha224-256.c
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/master/tests/sha224-256.c
>
> I am writing to you because it seems like this might be a matter of
> interpretation.  eg: that the official specification is BCP 78, but
> that the code samples are Simplified BSD.  It might also be necessary
> to consult two other files introduced in the same commit.  Here is
> that commit:
>
> https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/commit/4ddd6055c333932b561046ad1d41234d773246d2

github says "3 changed files" and then lists changes to 2 files.  The
changes to sha.h are fine.  What is the 3rd file ?

Ian.

Loading...