Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py
From: Guy Harris <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:31:47 -0700
On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:17 PM, João Valverde <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Debian licensecheck.pl version prior to the Smedegaard take over was standalone. I think we should import that to tools.

We might still want to look over the list of files currently being complained about (and make sure that the files we end up fixing are still checked):

	'test/run_and_catch_crashes' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'macosx-support-lib-patches/qt-fix-pc-files' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'macosx-support-lib-patches/qt-fix-pc-file' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

They were missing copyright notices.  I added some.

	'.tx/config' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'tools/vg-suppressions' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'tools/cppcheck/includes' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'tools/cppcheck/suppressions' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'Vagrantfile' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

Are config files worthy of a license, or should we just add these to an ignore list (even if they're Ruby programs, like Vagrantfile)?

	'epan/enterprise-numbers' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'dfilters' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'smi_modules' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'cfilters' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'services' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

Are data files for Wireshark worthy of a license, or should we just add these to an ignore list?

	'tools/asn2deb' has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)'
	'tools/idl2deb' has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)'

Address fixed, hopefully that'll make it happy.

	'tools/pre-commit' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'tools/update-tx' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

Alexis, do you want to add a license to these?

	'debian/rules' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/copyright' has non-whitelisted license 'LGPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)'
	'debian/compat' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/geoip_db_paths' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/dirs' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/control' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/changelog' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/patches/series' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/templates' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/postinst' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/license-text-about-dialog' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'debian/source/format' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

Balint?  What does Debian do about licenses on these sorts of files?

	'epan/dissectors/packet-dtn.c' has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later)'

I don't see any real problem with the license; it might just be written in a way that confuses the checker.

	'epan/dissectors/dcerpc/drsuapi/Makefile' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'epan/dissectors/dcerpc/butc/Makefile' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'epan/dissectors/dcerpc/budb/Makefile' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

Is there some reason why these are treated differently from other generated-from-PIDL dissectors?

	'epan/dissectors/packet-ppi.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap_ccmp.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap_interop.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap_tkip.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/wep-wpadefs.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap_system.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap_int.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap_debug.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap_user.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'epan/crypt/airpdcap_ws.h' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'
	'wsutil/airpdcap_wep.c' has non-whitelisted license 'BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)'

Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the BSD license or under the GPL" as an acceptable license?

	'docbook/ws.css' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

Are CSS files worthy of a license (and what license would be appropriate for that one?), or should we just add theis to an ignore list?

	'packaging/svr4/mkpkg' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

What license, if any, would be appropriate for this?

	'doc/eproto2sgml' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

Richard, should we add a license to this?

	'doc/extcap.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/tshark.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/randpktdump.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/sshdump.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/androiddump.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/dumpcap.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/editcap.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/reordercap.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/rawshark.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/mergecap.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/dftest.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/ciscodump.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/randpkt.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/idl2deb.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/captype.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'
	'doc/wireshark-filter.pod' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

What license, if any, should we put on our man pages?

	'help/toc' has non-whitelisted license 'UNKNOWN'

Too trivial for a license?