> On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the BSD license or under the GPL" as an acceptable license?
>>>
>>> Please review https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16957/.
>>
>> That's still special-casing the dual-licensed files; any reason not to just treat it as an acceptable license by adding "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)" to WHITELISTED_LICENSES?
>
> Repeating what I said in the Gerrit change (this is just my understanding of course):
>
> There's a difference between "choose license A or B" and "this code is license A and that addition is license B".
Then perhaps licensecheck.pl should distinguish between them:
diff --git a/tools/licensecheck.pl b/tools/licensecheck.pl
index ae2a92e..03adb35 100755
--- a/tools/licensecheck.pl
+++ b/tools/licensecheck.pl
@@ -800,6 +800,10 @@ sub parselicense {
$license = "WTFPL $license";
}
+ if ($licensetext =~ /Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of/i) {
+ $license = "Multiply-licensed: $license";
+ }
+
$license = "UNKNOWN" if (!length($license));
# Remove trailing spaces.
and the list of whitelisted licenses modified to include a number of
'Multiply-licensed: XXX YYY"
entries for cases where we accept dual-licensed code:
diff --git a/tools/checklicenses.py b/tools/checklicenses.py
index 8ee64f7..dd6ec6a 100755
--- a/tools/checklicenses.py
+++ b/tools/checklicenses.py
@@ -121,6 +121,11 @@ WHITELISTED_LICENSES = [
'zlib/libpng GPL (v2 or later)',
'SGI Free Software License B',
'University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License (BSD like)',
+
+ # Multiply-licensed code, allowed to be released under license
+ # A or, alternatively, under license B.
+ 'Multiply-licensed: BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)',
+ 'Multiply-licensed: ISC GPL (v2)',
]
