Re: [MBF]: json_checker testsuite, likely licensed "Good not Evil"
Fixed in lintian.
Lintian will tag these files
Thanks
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 10.10.2016, 21:48 +0200 schrieb Bastien ROUCARIES:
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Dear Developers,
>> >
>> > while packaging an updated version of one of my packages which
>> > included
>> > now rapidjson I became aware that this library includes the test
>> > suite
>> > date of http://json.org/JSON_checker/. While there is no license on
>> > the
>> > testsuite.zip, json_checker is licensed by json.org with the
>> > infamous
>> > clause "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."
>> > and I believe the testdata is covered under the same license "best
>> > case", (worst case not licensed at all.
>> >
>> > For rapidjson [1] I filed #840333, but afterwards I checked also
>> > codesearch.debian.net for one of the testcases [2] and found many
>> > packages including it verbatim.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if my assessment is right and we have a DFSG problem
>> > here,
>> > but if so, I guess this should be handled by extending the existing
>> > lintian error.
>>
>>
>> With my lintian maint hat, they are here two approach:
>> - autoreject based on md5sum and sha1
>> - autoreject based on regexp
>>
>> Do you have better signature than this file ?
>
> The testsuite data are in total 36 (mostly) small files, so I guess
> the hashes would work, maybe with an additional indicator if more than
> one file in the set is found.
>
> The zip is here:
> http://json.org/JSON_checker/test.zip
> a git repo for convenient browsing them here:
> https://github.com/miloyip/rapidjson/tree/master/bin/jsonchecker
>
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] (where upstream is aware of it and later versions recommend to
>> > remove the testsuite)
>> > [1] https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%22Extra+comma%22%3A+tru
>> > e%2C
>> > +path%3Afail9.json&perpkg=1
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > tobi
>> >
>>
> --
> tobi
Reply to: