Re: checklicenses.py

[João Valverde <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt>]

On 08/05/2016 10:31 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:17 PM, João Valverde <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt> wrote:
>
> > The Debian licensecheck.pl version prior to the Smedegaard take over was standalone. I think we should import that to 
> > tools.
>
> We might still want to look over the list of files currently being complained about (and make sure that the files we 
> end up fixing are still checked):
>
>         'test/run_and_catch_crashes' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'macosx-support-lib-patches/qt-fix-pc-files' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'macosx-support-lib-patches/qt-fix-pc-file' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>
> They were missing copyright notices.  I added some.
>
>         '.tx/config' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'tools/vg-suppressions' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'tools/cppcheck/includes' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'tools/cppcheck/suppressions' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'Vagrantfile' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>
> Are config files worthy of a license, or should we just add these to an ignore list (even if they're Ruby programs, 
> like Vagrantfile)?
>
>         'epan/enterprise-numbers' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'dfilters' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'smi_modules' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'cfilters' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'services' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>
> Are data files for Wireshark worthy of a license, or should we just add these to an ignore list?
>
>         'tools/asn2deb' has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)'
>         'tools/idl2deb' has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)'
>
> Address fixed, hopefully that'll make it happy.
>
>         'tools/pre-commit' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'tools/update-tx' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>
> Alexis, do you want to add a license to these?
>
>         'debian/rules' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/copyright' has non-whitelisted license 'LGPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)'
>         'debian/compat' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/geoip_db_paths' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/dirs' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/control' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/changelog' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/patches/series' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/templates' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/postinst' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/license-text-about-dialog' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'debian/source/format' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>
> Balint?  What does Debian do about licenses on these sorts of files?
>
>         'epan/dissectors/packet-dtn.c' has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later)'
>
> I don't see any real problem with the license; it might just be written in a way that confuses the checker.
>
>         'epan/dissectors/dcerpc/drsuapi/Makefile' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'epan/dissectors/dcerpc/butc/Makefile' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>         'epan/dissectors/dcerpc/budb/Makefile' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
>
> Is there some reason why these are treated differently from other generated-from-PIDL dissectors?
>
>         'epan/dissectors/packet-ppi.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap_ccmp.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap_interop.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap_tkip.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/wep-wpadefs.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap_system.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap_int.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap_debug.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap_user.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'epan/crypt/airpdcap_ws.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>         'wsutil/airpdcap_wep.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
>
> Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the BSD license or under the GPL" as an acceptable 
> license?

Please review https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16957/.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe