On Sunday, March 22, 2026 3:41:19 AM Mountain Standard Time Preuße, Hilmar wrote: > Am 13.03.2026 um 22:20 schrieb Soren Stoutner: > > Hello, > > > > lrc (licenserecon) - this has a lot of false positives, but it also catches > > a lot of things I need to look at. This doesn’t check copyright > > information, just licenses. > > > > I'm using that tool now extensively. It says for a specific file: > > FSFULLR and/or GPL and/or LGPL build-aux/m4/nls.m4 > > It likes the entry > > License: FSFULLR and/or GPL and/or LGPL > > in d/copyright, but lintian does not like it: > > W: texinfo source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright fsfullr > and/or gpl and/or lgpl [debian/copyright:99] > > A simple "and" or "or" conjunction as described on [1] is not accepted > by lrc, although I would guess that an "or" conjunction would be > correct. I will check if other packages have that file too and how they > solved the situation.
1. lrc has a lot of problems with AND/OR license combinations. I often have to use debian/lrc.config to tell it not to worry about these files once I have verified they are correct. For example: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/courier/-/blob/master/debian/lrc.config? ref_type=heads 2. debian/copyright does not accept “and/or” as a valid conjoiner for licenses. It is either “and” or “or”. Some things outside of Debian use the “and/or” syntax, by which they mean that you can pick either license. That is the same meaning as “or”, do Debian just uses “or”. This would probably be a valid bug to submit against lrc (asking them not to use the and/or syntax in their detection). lrc is mostly a wrapper for licensecheck, so the bug might be moved there by the developer if that is where the syntax is coming from. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
