On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 11:16:25AM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > This is not reported on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lighttpd > > I would not expect it to be. tracker.debian.org does not do any automatic > checking of licensing information because it is too easy to hit false > positives. > > > This is newly reported, as this file has been part of the lighttpd > > > debian package circa 2006. > > A lot of time licensing information is missed. One of the great things > that Phil is doing is running lrc (licence recon, which is a relatively > new tool that I don’t think was available in 2006) against every RFS > package, which is illuminating a lot of tricky licensing issues. However, > you should note that lrc is prone to a lot of false positives (because > parsing licensing information is difficult, so it is not run automatically > in places like tracker.debian.org. When you do find a false positive, you > can override it similar to how you override incorrect lintian tags.
I did not see this locally (and, to Glenn's point, it was burried in the middle of a lot of chaff). I have already sponsored the package to sid. I looked at the diff but didn't see any license changes in there. Taking off my "I sponsored this package hat" and putting on my "ftpteam hat", there should be an RC bug if the debian/copyright file is incomplete on lighttpd. Taking off my "ftpteam hat" and putting back on my "I sponsored this package" hat, I checked the packaege as sponsored, and the debian/copyright is correct here and mentions the quoted licenses, I don't see a bug. Can someone point out the missing license information in copyright? Fondly, paultag -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Paul Tagliamonte <paultag> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://people.debian.org/~paultag | https://pault.ag/ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ Debian, the universal operating system. ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀ 4096R / FEF2 EB20 16E6 A856 B98C E820 2DCD 6B5D E858 ADF3