On 26.09.2012 09:14, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
You might be right, I've noticed that third clause is slightly
different.
Well, it's basically the exact inverse of the usual clause. :)
The question is still why is it detected as 2-clause when the number
of
clauses, technically speaking, is three.
It's not about the number of clauses, it's about their content. Each of
the clauses has a well-known structure.
I'm not sure if the change in the third clause is significant enough
to
declare it 2-clause.
Also if BSD-2-clause is a fallback from unidentified BSD-like license
the we have a bug in detection algorithm aren't we?
It has to be quite close, not just "BSD-like". The code's fairly
readable :-)
if ($licensetext =~ /THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED .*AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY/) {
if ($licensetext =~ /All advertising materials mentioning features or
use of this software must display the following acknowledge?ment.*This
product includes software developed by/i) {
$license = "BSD (4 clause) $license";
} elsif ($licensetext =~ /(The name .*? may not|Neither the names?
.*? nor the names of (its|their) contributors may) be used to endorse or
promote products derived from this software/i) {
$license = "BSD (3 clause) $license";
} elsif ($licensetext =~ /Redistributions of source code must retain
the above copyright notice/i) {
$license = "BSD (2 clause) $license";
} else {
$license = "BSD $license";
}
}
I think my opinion here is fairly clear at the moment, but I'm also not
the most active of the maintainers right now, so I'll leave things to
see if any of the others comment.
Regards,
Adam
_______________________________________________
devscripts-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devscripts-devel
