[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Licensecheck returns UNKOWN, but it's GPL

2009/2/1 Luca Niccoli <lultimouomo@gmail.com>:
> 2009/1/31 Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>:
>> If you can come up with a reproducible test case for 'licensecheck'
>> not behaving as it should, submit it as a bug report.
> I'm sure on my system it doesn't check files with names ending in '.h'

I had a look at the licencecheck, this solves the problem:

--- /usr/bin/licensecheck	2009-01-21 20:43:26.000000000 +0100
+++ licensecheck	2009-02-03 02:16:36.000000000 +0100
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@
 $default_ignore_regex =~ s/^#.*$//mg;
 $default_ignore_regex =~ s/\n//sg;

-my $default_check_regex =
+my $default_check_regex =

 my $modified_conf_msg;

But the fact is that I don't know if files with names ending in .h are
intended to be checked by default.
Anyone knows if this is actually a bug?

> I'll ping upstream to get clarifications...

Ok, the three files without copyright statement are not by the same
author, but all covered by GPLv2.

Two of them are actually kernel headers, I think from an old 2.4 version.
Now, I tried removing them and build depending on linux-headers-2.6,
it works fine.
I guess upstream wouldn't be happy to ask his users to install the
whole kernel headers, just to compile that tiny package; what is the
correct way to deal with this, repackage orig.tar.gz?
Or just patch the source not to use the headers included in the
tarball is enough?
Sticking with the files provided buy upstream makes the compilation a
far less painful activity (no time and space wasted for unpacking
kernel headers), but I think it's reckoned a Bad Thing...

As of the third file without copyright statement, it comes from
project non packaged in debian.
Is appending a note to debian/copyright about the author of that file ok?



Reply to: