Bug#498875: lintian: please detect 2.x licences and warn
tag 498875 - moreinfo thanks Attaching updated patch with a more accurate description of the situation and new, extra, references. As for excluding PHP from the check: since the check is binary-based it would be a PITA to maintain the list of binary packages, and using a regex to exclude packages won't help because it may cause false negatives. And of course, only old versions of PHP itself will trigger the warning (not even etch's version trigger it), so it should be just fine not to exclude anything. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net php_licences.mbox Description: application/mbox signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Processed: Re: Bug#498875: lintian: please detect 2.x licences and warn
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tag 498875 - moreinfo Bug#498875: lintian: please detect PHP 2.x licences and warn Tags were: moreinfo patch Tags removed: moreinfo thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#498875: lintian: please detect 2.x licences and warn
Package: lintian Version: 1.24.4 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Since there has been no follow up, I'm now filing it as a bug report to have a record. --- Forwarded message Subject: Re: Some more patches From: Raphael Geissert Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:38:40 -0500 Newsgroup: gmane.linux.debian.devel.lint.devel [CC'ing ftp-masters] Russ Allbery wrote: Russ Allbery ... writes: The PHP 2.x tag saying that it's non-free bothers me without a reference from ftp-master that it's non-free, and I don't see anything about PHP 2.x specifically in the REJECT FAQ. I'm personally not very comfortable with Lintian making any judgements about licenses; the PHP Finishing this thought... the PHP license is a special case since it's singled out in the REJECT FAQ, and I'm generally in favor of writing tests for that stuff for multiple reasons, but I want to stay clear of any license controversies if we can. Well, the problem is that the discussion of the PHP licences is spread in several threads all around -legal. But it is probably better to just paraphrase the tag and description (as it is not suitable at all for anything by PHP itself, and even in that case there are some issues because of the Zend engine). The whole thing is a nightmare :-/. Or what's the ftp-masters opinion? Cheers, -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#498875: lintian: please detect 2.x licences and warn
Raphael Geissert wrote:
Tags: patch
Now actually including the patch.
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
diff --git a/checks/copyright-file b/checks/copyright-file
index 5b4c050..f035cf9 100644
--- a/checks/copyright-file
+++ b/checks/copyright-file
@@ -178,6 +178,14 @@ if (m/(Free\s*Software\s*Foundation.*02139|02111-1307)/s) {
tag old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file, ;
}
+if (m/(The\s+PHP\s+Licen[cs]e,?\s+version\s+2)/si) {
+tag copyright-refers-to-non-free-php-license, ;
+}
+
+if (m/(The\s+PHP\s+Licen[cs]e,?\s+version\s+3\.0[^\d])/si) {
+tag copyright-refers-to-problematic-php-license, ;
+}
+
# Whether the package is covered by the GPL, used later for the libssl check.
my $gpl;
diff --git a/checks/copyright-file.desc b/checks/copyright-file.desc
index dea3ff6..eefe847 100644
--- a/checks/copyright-file.desc
+++ b/checks/copyright-file.desc
@@ -266,3 +266,16 @@ Info: This package appears to be covered by the GNU GPL but depends on
linked with OpenSSL, is covered by the GNU GPL, please add a lintian
override for this tag. Lintian currently has no good way of
distinguishing between that case and problematic packages.
+
+Tag: copyright-refers-to-non-free-php-license
+Type: error
+Ref: http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html, http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/23332
+Info: This package appears to be covered by the PHP license version 2.x
+ which is considered non-free for anything but PHP.
+
+Tag: copyright-refers-to-problematic-php-license
+Type: warning
+Ref: http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html, http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/22547
+Info: This package appears to be covered by the PHP license version 3.0
+ which is considered problematic for anything that is not PHP and has no
+ contribution from the PHP Group.
