Hi While working on Tarsnap's that embeds a copy of 'libarchive' I noticed a discrepency in the BSD-2-Clause boiler plate of libarchive. Compare https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/libarchive/archive.h ... * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright ... with https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/libarchive/archive_write_disk_private.h ... * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer * in this position and unchanged. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright ... Note the added line with 'in this position and unchanged'. I don't see this mentioned in debian/copyright which I assume is a problem that ought to be fixed: https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/debian/copyright The license seems similar in spirit to the BSD-2-Clause-first-lines license: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause-first-lines.html The only classification of this variant that I can find is this one: https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/bsd-unchanged The FSF, OSI, and SPDX does not appear to recognize/discuss this variant, or at least I cannot find it on their sites. Questions: 1) Is the license DFSG-compliant? 2) Must the license text including that sentence be mentioned in debian/copyright? 3) Is it correct to use a 'BSD-2-Clause' keyword that expanded to a pure BSD-2-Clause license text (i.e., without the sentence), or must a new stanza (e.g., 'BSD-2-Clause-unchanged') be used that expands to the appropriate blurb include the missing sentence? I'm guessing Yes, Yes, and BSD-2-Clause-unchanged, but that would just be my opinion. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature