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
Description: PGP signature
