Luca Niccoli <lultimou...@gmail.com> writes: > Souce files of the program I'm packaging contain the following header: > > /* fswebcam - Small and simple webcam for *nix */ > /*===========================================================*/ > /* Copyright (C)2005-2006 Philip Heron <p...@firestorm.cx> */ > /* */ > /* This program is distributed under the terms of the GNU */ > /* General Public License, version 2. You may use, modify, */ > /* and redistribute it under the terms of this license. A */ > /* copy should be included with this source. */ > > which isn't recognised as a GPL license statement by licensecheck.
The ‘licensecheck’ tool is a guide only. It uses simple pattern matching to detect some well-known license grant texts, but can't hope to catch them all. The above is not one recognised by its existing patterns. > Simply ignore it The above is a valid license grant IMO, so you shouldn't ignore it. > file a bug against licensecheck The ‘licensecheck’ tool shouldn't attempt to cover every possible wording of a license grant; that would require natural language parsing at the least. Unless it misses wordings that are *very* common, I would say there isn't yet a bug in the tool. > file a bug against upstream? You could politely request upstream to use a more common wording of the license grant. On the other hand, IMO there's nothing wrong with the wording as it is, so upstream could just as politely decline your request :-) > What should I do? Use ‘licensecheck’ as an initial step, but never a last step. Always examine every file in any upstream work you want to package to see what the license grants actually are. -- \ “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must | `\ not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” | _o__) —Albert Einstein | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
