On 13/03/2026 09:23, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Peter Blackman <[email protected]> writes:
On 09/03/2026 21:09, Peter Blackman wrote:
I don't see a bug here though. While the package source may be dual licensed,
the file LICENSE-APACHE is clearly Apache-2.0 licensed,
and the file LICENSE-MIT is clearly MIT or Expat licensed.
licensecheck and hence licenserecon are correct here.
While there is a genuine license difference being reported,
on further consideration, I agree its not a significant difference.
Will fix.
Great! I also see this, but have ignored them via debian/lrc.config.
License texts are exceptional that warrant special consideration.
Generally speaking, license texts are NOT licensed under itself.
Compare the text of GPL-3.0 itself:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Often license texts doesn't even carry any licensing information about
itself, which makes the situation unclear at best, and at worst there is
no rights whatsever to the license text. Presumably a grant to allow
copy and distribute verbatim copies of license texts are implied.
/Simon
The license of license text is indeed a tricky area.
Originally I excluded all files called license etc. because of false positives,
but a case was reported on Mentors where source files had no
headers, and files with different licenses where in separate
sub-directories with a LICENSE file in the parent of each tree.
The d/copyright had missed these, but lrc test passed!
