subject:"\[Wireshark\-dev\] checklicenses.py"

On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:

> See this for a practical concern about the GDFL:
> 
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001

If Debian concluded that "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are 
free", then the GFDL would be OK only if we make sure there are no 
"unmodifiable sections".

I'm not sure how much effort it would be to do that.  Given that we've already 
released the User's and Developer's guide under GPLv2-or-later, we might as 
well use GPLv2-or-later for the man pages, saving ourselves that effort (and 
the effort of finding out how much effort it would be...), however much that 
effort might be.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/09/2016 02:52 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:30 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:


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


I think we can just use the standard Wireshark GPLv2+ header here, with 
copyright to Gerald and contributors.


Is the GPL an appropriate license for documentation, or would the GFDL be more 
appropriate?

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL

For what it's worth, the Bison man page on my machine has no license on it.  I 
don't know whether any other GNU software that comes with a man page puts a 
license on the man page; perhaps they don't care enough about man pages, as 
opposed to Texinfo documents, to bother with a license.  bison.texinfo is 
licensed under the GFDL:

https://opensource.apple.com/source/bison/bison-14/doc/bison.texinfo


The reasonable assumption is that past contributions were made under the 
same licensing terms as the rest of Wireshark. I'm not sure we can just 
slap any license on it without some effort to ask people who made 
significant contributions (IANAL).


See this for a practical concern about the GDFL:

https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:30 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:

>> What license, if any, should we put on our man pages?
> 
> I think we can just use the standard Wireshark GPLv2+ header here, with 
> copyright to Gerald and contributors.

Is the GPL an appropriate license for documentation, or would the GFDL be more 
appropriate?

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL

For what it's worth, the Bison man page on my machine has no license on it.  I 
don't know whether any other GNU software that comes with a man page puts a 
license on the man page; perhaps they don't care enough about man pages, as 
opposed to Texinfo documents, to bother with a license.  bison.texinfo is 
licensed under the GFDL:

https://opensource.apple.com/source/bison/bison-14/doc/bison.texinfo
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/05/2016 10:31 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:17 PM, João Valverde  
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):

'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?


I think we can just use the standard Wireshark GPLv2+ header here, with 
copyright to Gerald and contributors.


Any objections?
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:46 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:

> We can either add a path-specific exception for this saying "BSD GPLv2 is 
> really just BSD for these files" or fix licensecheck.pl to be smarter about 
> it.

I vote, as you might expect, for the second choice:

https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16967/

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/08/2016 11:15 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:10 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:


Mainly what I was trying to say is that this dual licensing distinction can 
already be handled with path-specific exceptions so I guess I'm indifferent to 
adding more code for this.


I view path-specific exceptions as workarounds for deficiencies in 
licensecheck, and would prefer to have as few path-specific exceptions as 
possible.  Ideally, the only places where path-specific exceptions would be 
used would be places where licensecheck would need AI rather than pattern 
matching to identify the license. :-)



A very reasonable point of view IMO. :-)

To summarize the issue addressed by change 16957, licensecheck.pl 
conflates "BSD and GPLv2" to be the same as "BSD or GPLv2", with its 
simple regex based logic.


We are OK with "BSD or GPLv2" but not "BSD and GPLv2", so whitelisting 
"BSD GPLv2", as licensecheck reports both cases, would be wrong.


We can either add a path-specific exception for this saying "BSD GPLv2 
is really just BSD for these files" or fix licensecheck.pl to be smarter 
about it.

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:10 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:

> Mainly what I was trying to say is that this dual licensing distinction can 
> already be handled with path-specific exceptions so I guess I'm indifferent 
> to adding more code for this.

I view path-specific exceptions as workarounds for deficiencies in 
licensecheck, and would prefer to have as few path-specific exceptions as 
possible.  Ideally, the only places where path-specific exceptions would be 
used would be places where licensecheck would need AI rather than pattern 
matching to identify the license. :-)

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On 08/08/2016 10:59 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 8, 2016, at 12:12 PM, João Valverde
wrote:

On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde
wrote:

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:

[ snipped code sample]

Perhaps... I think that distinction only matters to the copyright holder, CACE
Technologies, now Riverbed I believe.

For the distributor, the Wireshark project, the code is licensed under BSD,
because it cannot be used with GPLv2+.

The license checking process has two parts:

identifying the license(s) for the file;

distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable licenses.

The first part is what licensecheck.pl does; it doesn't and shouldn't care why the license types
are interesting, it should just try to determine how the file is licensed. "This file has a
mixture of code licensed under license X and code licensed under license Y" and "the code
in this file, in its entirety, could be licensed under either license X or license Y" are two
different forms of license, so it makes sense to me that the script should report them differently.

The second part is what checklicenses.py does. It's not reporting what license
the Wireshark Foundation chooses to use for a given file, it's just determining
whether the license is acceptable for Wireshark or not.

"This file has a mixture of BSD and GPLv2-only code" isn't acceptable, I guess,
if we have to worry about linking with GPLv3 code outside of Wireshark; we'd have to
replace all the GPLv2-only code with code licensed under a license compatible with the
GPLv3 (or get the licensor to change the license to GPLv2-or-later).

"This file can, in its entirety, be licensed under the BSD license or the GPLv2
license, but not any later licenses" is acceptable, as we can choose to license it
under the BSD license.

So the distinction between those two *does* matter to the Wireshark project -
we can't choose the BSD license for a file with a mix of BSD and GPLv2-only
code, but we can do so for dual BSD/GPLv2-only code.

That's true. The point is that 'BSD + GPL' is different from 'BSD or GPL'.

Mainly what I was trying to say is that this dual licensing distinction
can already be handled with path-specific exceptions so I guess I'm
indifferent to adding more code for this.

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 8, 2016, at 12:12 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:

> On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>> 
>>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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:
> 
> [ snipped code sample]
> 
> Perhaps... I think that distinction only matters to the copyright holder, 
> CACE Technologies, now Riverbed I believe.
> 
> For the distributor, the Wireshark project, the code is licensed under BSD, 
> because it cannot be used with GPLv2+.

The license checking process has two parts:

identifying the license(s) for the file;

distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable licenses.

The first part is what licensecheck.pl does; it doesn't and shouldn't care why 
the license types are interesting, it should just try to determine how the file 
is licensed.  "This file has a mixture of code licensed under license X and 
code licensed under license Y" and "the code in this file, in its entirety, 
could be licensed under either license X or license Y" are two different forms 
of license, so it makes sense to me that the script should report them 
differently.

The second part is what checklicenses.py does.  It's not reporting what license 
the Wireshark Foundation chooses to use for a given file, it's just determining 
whether the license is acceptable for Wireshark or not.

"This file has a mixture of BSD and GPLv2-only code" isn't acceptable, I guess, 
if we have to worry about linking with GPLv3 code outside of Wireshark; we'd 
have to replace all the GPLv2-only code with code licensed under a license 
compatible with the GPLv3 (or get the licensor to change the license to 
GPLv2-or-later).

"This file can, in its entirety, be licensed under the BSD license or the GPLv2 
license, but not any later licenses" is acceptable, as we can choose to license 
it under the BSD license.

So the distinction between those two *does* matter to the Wireshark project - 
we can't choose the BSD license for a file with a mix of BSD and GPLv2-only 
code, but we can do so for dual BSD/GPLv2-only code.

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/08/2016 08:12 PM, João Valverde wrote:



On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:



On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde
 wrote:



On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde
 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:


[ snipped code sample]

Perhaps... I think that distinction only matters to the copyright
holder, CACE Technologies, now Riverbed I believe.

For the distributor, the Wireshark project, the code is licensed under
BSD, because it cannot be used with GPLv2+.


I meant to say cannot be used with GPLv2+ *otherwise*. More accurately 
that accepting GPLv2 only code would mean we can't use GPLv3(+).


Sorry for the confusion.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:



On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde  
wrote:



On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde  
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:


[ snipped code sample]

Perhaps... I think that distinction only matters to the copyright 
holder, CACE Technologies, now Riverbed I believe.


For the distributor, the Wireshark project, the code is licensed under 
BSD, because it cannot be used with GPLv2+.

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py


> On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde  
>> 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)',
 ]
 
 

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde  
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".


We don't want to whitelist BSD + GPLv2, i.e, a BSD licensed file with a 
GPLv2 contribution, because it would be incompatible with GPLv3 code.

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde  
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?

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/05/2016 10:31 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:17 PM, João Valverde  
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?


Please review https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16957/.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

Let me also stress that only doc/*.pod and some airpcap files have the 
hacky soon-to-be-removed exception. These were grandfathered in. 
Everything else will still cause hard builbot failures.


On 08/06/2016 11:23 PM, João Valverde wrote:



On 08/06/2016 11:01 PM, Michael Mann wrote:

So is the "checklicense tool" now the same between the Petri-Dish and
the master buildbot?  Is that the reason the master buildbot now has to
"pass" (otherwise all Petri-Dish runs will fail)?


Yes, that's the reason.


If so, I prefer the way it used  to be - master buildbot (legitimately)
failing, but Petri-Dish being more lenient (even if it was
unintentional).


OK, but PD was never lenient. The difference is that the PD
licensecheck.pl used to match fewer files.

The intent of the original email and my efforts was to

only remove errors for files that had a legitimate reason not to have
license template.  I think "all files without an extension" is a little
too generous an exception (although I do appreciate all the work João
did) .  Guy nicely outlined the remaining issues and I don't want those
to get lost in the shuffle because the buildbot appears as if its
"passing".


The overly generous situation was the extant situation before the recent
buildbot upgrades to Ubuntu 16.04. But to eliminate is a one line change
-- see the diff I mailed.



-Original Message-
From: João Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Sent: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On 08/06/2016 10:07 PM, Guy Harris wrote: > On Aug 6, 2016, at 1:21 PM,
João Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
<mailto:joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>> wrote: > >> Done in
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16913/. > > Does "Removed regex to
check files without an extension." mean that we are, or aren't, checking
files without an extension? > > If it means we aren't, should we give
the few scripts that don't have an extension an extension, such as .sh
for shell scripts, so that we check them for a license? Most of our
shell scripts have a .sh extension, although that's not necessarily the
right answer for shell scripts to be run as commands. It means we aren't
checking files without an extension. I removed that match from the
Debian script as unworkable for our purposes, made worse by the fact
that the check licenses step is being run on an unclean build directory
by PD. I think your suggestion to add an .sh extension for files we wish
to include would be best. But otherwise we should feel free to tailor
checklicenses.py + licensecheck.pl in the tools dir to suit our needs.
For future reference here is the diff I applied to the upstream
licensecheck.pl: --- ../licensecheck.pl 2016-08-05 20:43:04.098683796
+0100 +++ tools/licensecheck.pl 2016-08-06 20:18:20.415943059 +0100 @@
-193,8 +193,6 @@ my $default_ignore_regex = qr! my $default_check_regex
= qr! - /[\w-]+$ # executable scripts or README like file - | \.( #
search for file suffix c(c|pp|xx)? # c and c++ |h(h|pp|xx)? # header
files for c and c++ @@ -594,7 +592,7 @@ EOF sub version { print <<"EOF";
-This is $progname, from the Debian devscripts package, version
###VERSION### +This is $progname, from the Debian devscripts package,
version 2.16.2 Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 by Adam D. Barratt
<adam\@adam-barratt.org.uk>; based on a script of the same name from the
KDE SDK by <dfaure\@kde.org>. @@ -657,7 +655,7 @@ sub parselicense {
$license = "GPL$gplver$extrainfo $license"; } - + if ($licensetext =~
/is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License,/ and
length $gplver) {
___

Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
<mailto:d...@wireshark.org>> Archives:
https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe:
https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___

Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev

mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailin

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/06/2016 11:01 PM, Michael Mann wrote:

So is the "checklicense tool" now the same between the Petri-Dish and
the master buildbot?  Is that the reason the master buildbot now has to
"pass" (otherwise all Petri-Dish runs will fail)?


Yes, that's the reason.


If so, I prefer the way it used  to be - master buildbot (legitimately)
failing, but Petri-Dish being more lenient (even if it was
unintentional).


OK, but PD was never lenient. The difference is that the PD 
licensecheck.pl used to match fewer files.


The intent of the original email and my efforts was to

only remove errors for files that had a legitimate reason not to have
license template.  I think "all files without an extension" is a little
too generous an exception (although I do appreciate all the work João
did) .  Guy nicely outlined the remaining issues and I don't want those
to get lost in the shuffle because the buildbot appears as if its "passing".


The overly generous situation was the extant situation before the recent 
buildbot upgrades to Ubuntu 16.04. But to eliminate is a one line change 
-- see the diff I mailed.




-Original Message-
From: João Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Sent: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On 08/06/2016 10:07 PM, Guy Harris wrote: > On Aug 6, 2016, at 1:21 PM,
João Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
<mailto:joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>> wrote: > >> Done in
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16913/. > > Does "Removed regex to
check files without an extension." mean that we are, or aren't, checking
files without an extension? > > If it means we aren't, should we give
the few scripts that don't have an extension an extension, such as .sh
for shell scripts, so that we check them for a license? Most of our
shell scripts have a .sh extension, although that's not necessarily the
right answer for shell scripts to be run as commands. It means we aren't
checking files without an extension. I removed that match from the
Debian script as unworkable for our purposes, made worse by the fact
that the check licenses step is being run on an unclean build directory
by PD. I think your suggestion to add an .sh extension for files we wish
to include would be best. But otherwise we should feel free to tailor
checklicenses.py + licensecheck.pl in the tools dir to suit our needs.
For future reference here is the diff I applied to the upstream
licensecheck.pl: --- ../licensecheck.pl 2016-08-05 20:43:04.098683796
+0100 +++ tools/licensecheck.pl 2016-08-06 20:18:20.415943059 +0100 @@
-193,8 +193,6 @@ my $default_ignore_regex = qr! my $default_check_regex
= qr! - /[\w-]+$ # executable scripts or README like file - | \.( #
search for file suffix c(c|pp|xx)? # c and c++ |h(h|pp|xx)? # header
files for c and c++ @@ -594,7 +592,7 @@ EOF sub version { print <<"EOF";
-This is $progname, from the Debian devscripts package, version
###VERSION### +This is $progname, from the Debian devscripts package,
version 2.16.2 Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 by Adam D. Barratt
<adam\@adam-barratt.org.uk>; based on a script of the same name from the
KDE SDK by <dfaure\@kde.org>. @@ -657,7 +655,7 @@ sub parselicense {
$license = "GPL$gplver$extrainfo $license"; } - + if ($licensetext =~
/is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License,/ and
length $gplver) {
___
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
<mailto:d...@wireshark.org>> Archives:
https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe:
https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

2016-08-06 Thread Michael Mann


So is the "checklicense tool" now the same between the Petri-Dish and the 
master buildbot?  Is that the reason the master buildbot now has to "pass" 
(otherwise all Petri-Dish runs will fail)?
 
If so, I prefer the way it used to be - master buildbot (legitimately) failing, 
but Petri-Dish being more lenient (even if it was unintentional).  The intent 
of the original email and my efforts was to only remove errors for files that 
had a legitimate reason not to have license template.  I think "all files 
without an extension" is a little too generous an exception (although I do 
appreciate all the work João did) .  Guy nicely outlined the remaining issues 
and I don't want those to get lost in the shuffle because the buildbot appears 
as if its "passing".


 
 
-Original Message-
From: João Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Sent: Sat, Aug 6, 2016 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On 08/06/2016 10:07 PM, Guy Harris wrote:> On Aug 6, 2016, at 1:21 PM, João 
Valverde <joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt> wrote:>>> Done in 
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16913/.>> Does "Removed regex to check 
files without an extension." mean that we are, or aren't, checking files 
without an extension?>> If it means we aren't, should we give the few scripts 
that don't have an extension an extension, such as .sh for shell scripts, so 
that we check them for a license?  Most of our shell scripts have a .sh 
extension, although that's not necessarily the right answer for shell scripts 
to be run as commands.It means we aren't checking files without an extension. I 
removed that match from the Debian script as unworkable for our purposes, made 
worse by the fact that the check licenses step is being run on an unclean build 
directory by PD.I think your suggestion to add an .sh extension for files we 
wish to include would be best. But otherwise we should feel free to tailor 
checklicenses.py + licensecheck.pl in the tools dir to suit our needs.For 
future reference here is the diff I applied to the upstream licensecheck.pl:--- 
../licensecheck.pl2016-08-05 20:43:04.098683796 +0100+++ 
tools/licensecheck.pl2016-08-06 20:18:20.415943059 +0100@@ -193,8 +193,6 @@ 
my $default_ignore_regex = qr!  my $default_check_regex =  qr!-/[\w-]+$ 
 # executable scripts or README like file-|  \.(
  # search for file suffix c(c|pp|xx)?  
# c and c++ |h(h|pp|xx)?  # header files for c and c++@@ 
-594,7 +592,7 @@ EOF  sub version {  print <<"EOF";-This is $progname, from 
the Debian devscripts package, version ###VERSION###+This is $progname, from 
the Debian devscripts package, version 2.16.2  Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 by Adam 
D. Barratt <adam\@adam-barratt.org.uk>; based  on a script of the same name 
from the KDE SDK by <dfaure\@kde.org>.@@ -657,7 +655,7 @@ sub parselicense {
   $license = "GPL$gplver$extrainfo $license";  }-+  if ($licensetext 
=~ /is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License,/   
and length $gplver) 
{___Sent
 via:Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>Archives:
https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-devUnsubscribe: 
https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev 
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/06/2016 10:07 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 6, 2016, at 1:21 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:


Done in https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16913/.


Does "Removed regex to check files without an extension." mean that we are, or 
aren't, checking files without an extension?

If it means we aren't, should we give the few scripts that don't have an 
extension an extension, such as .sh for shell scripts, so that we check them 
for a license?  Most of our shell scripts have a .sh extension, although that's 
not necessarily the right answer for shell scripts to be run as commands.


It means we aren't checking files without an extension. I removed that 
match from the Debian script as unworkable for our purposes, made worse 
by the fact that the check licenses step is being run on an unclean 
build directory by PD.


I think your suggestion to add an .sh extension for files we wish to 
include would be best. But otherwise we should feel free to tailor 
checklicenses.py + licensecheck.pl in the tools dir to suit our needs.


For future reference here is the diff I applied to the upstream 
licensecheck.pl:


--- ../licensecheck.pl  2016-08-05 20:43:04.098683796 +0100
+++ tools/licensecheck.pl   2016-08-06 20:18:20.415943059 +0100
@@ -193,8 +193,6 @@ my $default_ignore_regex = qr!

 my $default_check_regex =
 qr!
-/[\w-]+$  # executable scripts or README like file
-|
 \.(  # search for file suffix
 c(c|pp|xx)?  # c and c++
|h(h|pp|xx)?  # header files for c and c++
@@ -594,7 +592,7 @@ EOF

 sub version {
 print <<"EOF";
-This is $progname, from the Debian devscripts package, version 
###VERSION###

+This is $progname, from the Debian devscripts package, version 2.16.2
 Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 by Adam D. Barratt 
; based

 on a script of the same name from the KDE SDK by .

@@ -657,7 +655,7 @@ sub parselicense {
$license = "GPL$gplver$extrainfo $license";
 }

-
+

 if ($licensetext =~ /is distributed under the terms of the GNU 
General Public License,/

and length $gplver) {
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

2016-08-06 Thread Guy Harris

On Aug 6, 2016, at 1:21 PM, João Valverde  
wrote:

> Done in https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16913/.

Does "Removed regex to check files without an extension." mean that we are, or 
aren't, checking files without an extension?

If it means we aren't, should we give the few scripts that don't have an 
extension an extension, such as .sh for shell scripts, so that we check them 
for a license?  Most of our shell scripts have a .sh extension, although that's 
not necessarily the right answer for shell scripts to be run as commands.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/05/2016 08:17 PM, João Valverde wrote:



On 08/05/2016 11:53 AM, João Valverde wrote:



On 08/05/2016 11:50 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 5, 2016, at 3:36 AM, João Valverde
 wrote:


On 08/05/2016 11:21 AM, Guy Harris wrote:


Should we just grab some version that works and include it in the
tools directory, so that we don't get mysterious failures when
updating the version of Ubuntu on the buildbot and don't fail - or
require somebody to dig up or install via CPAN - on systems that
don't distribute it?


No... too many CPAN dependencies.


I.e., it's not a standalone script, and you'd have to get a ton of
other scripts from CPAN and distribute them as well?


Yes (naturally this is the dependency problem CPAN itself tries to
solve).


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


Done in https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16913/.

The master buildbot check licenses step is passing with a FIXME_FILES 
exception but let's not leave this hack in there forever...


I just added that because the new failures were caused by the different
licensecheck.pl version. Hopefully FIXME_FILES will be removed soon with 
a better solution.

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Guy Harris  wrote:

>   '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.

Fixed.

>   '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.

No, it's still annoyed because the initials GPL appear more than once in the 
file, or something such as that.  It should do a better job of detecting actual 
*licenses* as opposed to, for example

scriptinfo = """asn2deb version 2004-02-17
Copyright 2004, W. Borgert
Free software, released under the terms of the GPL."""

or

create_file("debian/copyright",
"""This package has been created automatically be asn2deb on
%s for Debian GNU/Linux.

Wireshark: http://www.wireshark.com/

Copyright:

GPL, as evidenced by existence of GPL license file \"COPYING\".
(the GNU GPL may be viewed on Debian systems in
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL)
""" % (iso))
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:17 PM, João Valverde  
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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/05/2016 11:53 AM, João Valverde wrote:



On 08/05/2016 11:50 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 5, 2016, at 3:36 AM, João Valverde
 wrote:


On 08/05/2016 11:21 AM, Guy Harris wrote:


Should we just grab some version that works and include it in the
tools directory, so that we don't get mysterious failures when
updating the version of Ubuntu on the buildbot and don't fail - or
require somebody to dig up or install via CPAN - on systems that
don't distribute it?


No... too many CPAN dependencies.


I.e., it's not a standalone script, and you'd have to get a ton of
other scripts from CPAN and distribute them as well?


Yes (naturally this is the dependency problem CPAN itself tries to solve).


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


The version corresponding to our buildbots (Ubuntu 16.04) is available here:

https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/devscripts.git/tree/scripts/licensecheck.pl?h=v2.16.2
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/05/2016 11:50 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 5, 2016, at 3:36 AM, João Valverde  
wrote:


On 08/05/2016 11:21 AM, Guy Harris wrote:


Should we just grab some version that works and include it in the tools 
directory, so that we don't get mysterious failures when updating the version 
of Ubuntu on the buildbot and don't fail - or require somebody to dig up or 
install via CPAN - on systems that don't distribute it?


No... too many CPAN dependencies.


I.e., it's not a standalone script, and you'd have to get a ton of other 
scripts from CPAN and distribute them as well?


Yes (naturally this is the dependency problem CPAN itself tries to solve).
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 5, 2016, at 3:36 AM, João Valverde  
wrote:

> On 08/05/2016 11:21 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
> 
>> Should we just grab some version that works and include it in the tools 
>> directory, so that we don't get mysterious failures when updating the 
>> version of Ubuntu on the buildbot and don't fail - or require somebody to 
>> dig up or install via CPAN - on systems that don't distribute it?
> 
> No... too many CPAN dependencies.

I.e., it's not a standalone script, and you'd have to get a ton of other 
scripts from CPAN and distribute them as well?

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/05/2016 11:21 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:52 AM, Graham Bloice  wrote:


I did look a bit for licensecheck and it appears to be a Perl script available 
as a Debian (and RPM) package devscripts as suggested by João, a package for 
Debian package maintainers.  As such, it isn't available for Windows.  The 
checklicenses.py script should probably check for the existence of licensecheck 
before trying to open it as a subprocess.


Playing the fun game called "find the upstream" found

http://search.cpan.org/~jonass/App-Licensecheck-v3.0.2/bin/licensecheck

but that version appears to credit Jonas Smedegaard as one of the developers, 
while the version from Debian Jessie doesn't, so that doesn't appear to be the 
upstream version from Jessie.  I don't know whether Smedegaard and the Debian 
folk both started with the same earlier version but didn't end up there.

Should we just grab some version that works and include it in the tools 
directory, so that we don't get mysterious failures when updating the version 
of Ubuntu on the buildbot and don't fail - or require somebody to dig up or 
install via CPAN - on systems that don't distribute it?


No... too many CPAN dependencies.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

2016-08-05 Thread Graham Bloice

On 5 August 2016 at 11:21, Guy Harris  wrote:

> On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:52 AM, Graham Bloice 
> wrote:
>
> > I did look a bit for licensecheck and it appears to be a Perl script
> available as a Debian (and RPM) package devscripts as suggested by João, a
> package for Debian package maintainers.  As such, it isn't available for
> Windows.  The checklicenses.py script should probably check for the
> existence of licensecheck before trying to open it as a subprocess.
>
> Playing the fun game called "find the upstream" found
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~jonass/App-Licensecheck-v3.0.
> 2/bin/licensecheck
>
> but that version appears to credit Jonas Smedegaard as one of the
> developers, while the version from Debian Jessie doesn't, so that doesn't
> appear to be the upstream version from Jessie.  I don't know whether
> Smedegaard and the Debian folk both started with the same earlier version
> but didn't end up there.
>
> Should we just grab some version that works and include it in the tools
> directory, so that we don't get mysterious failures when updating the
> version of Ubuntu on the buildbot and don't fail - or require somebody to
> dig up or install via CPAN - on systems that don't distribute it?
>
>
+1, that might even work on Windows.

-- 
Graham Bloice
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:52 AM, Graham Bloice  wrote:

> I did look a bit for licensecheck and it appears to be a Perl script 
> available as a Debian (and RPM) package devscripts as suggested by João, a 
> package for Debian package maintainers.  As such, it isn't available for 
> Windows.  The checklicenses.py script should probably check for the existence 
> of licensecheck before trying to open it as a subprocess.

Playing the fun game called "find the upstream" found

http://search.cpan.org/~jonass/App-Licensecheck-v3.0.2/bin/licensecheck

but that version appears to credit Jonas Smedegaard as one of the developers, 
while the version from Debian Jessie doesn't, so that doesn't appear to be the 
upstream version from Jessie.  I don't know whether Smedegaard and the Debian 
folk both started with the same earlier version but didn't end up there.

Should we just grab some version that works and include it in the tools 
directory, so that we don't get mysterious failures when updating the version 
of Ubuntu on the buildbot and don't fail - or require somebody to dig up or 
install via CPAN - on systems that don't distribute it?
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/05/2016 10:45 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:00 AM, João Valverde  
wrote:


On 08/05/2016 08:56 AM, Alexis La Goutte wrote:

I confirm ;-) (too slow...)

But it is strange don't get the same warning between Ubuntu 14.04 and
16.04


I assume the licensecheck regexes changed. Michael may need to be running 16.04 
to test this with any accuracy.


By way of explanation:

licensecheck is a tool that checklicenses.py uses - but is *not* something we 
ship, which means that

1) if you don't have it installed on your system, checklicenses.py 
won't work, and I suspect only (some?) Linux distributions provide it as part 
of the distribution (and even there you might have to install the right package 
- in particular, Microsoft don't, as far as I know, ship it with Windows;

2) if version X.Y of a given OS has one version of licensecheck, and 
version X+1.Z of that OS has a different version, and the two different 
versions behave differently, that could cause checklicenses.py to behave 
differently on the two different versions of that OS.

So

1) checklicenses.py might not work on Windows unless you install 
licensecheck

and

2) checklicenses.py might start coughing up a lot more errors if 
upgrading from Ubuntu 15.whatever to 16.whatever gives you a new version of 
licensecheck that behaves differently in a way that causes more license 
complaints.

(I just discovered this a few minutes ago, when I went looking for 
licensecheck.  It doesn't ship with OS X, either.)


Right, it's a debian provided package maintainer helper script.

https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/App-Licensecheck/bin/licensecheck

Debian derivatives will have it, other distros probably not.

Non-Linux systems almost certainly won't provide it.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

2016-08-05 Thread Graham Bloice

On 5 August 2016 at 10:52, Graham Bloice 
wrote:

>
>
> On 5 August 2016 at 10:45, Guy Harris  wrote:
>
>> On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:00 AM, João Valverde > .pt> wrote:
>>
>> > On 08/05/2016 08:56 AM, Alexis La Goutte wrote:
>> >> I confirm ;-) (too slow...)
>> >>
>> >> But it is strange don't get the same warning between Ubuntu 14.04 and
>> >> 16.04
>> >
>> > I assume the licensecheck regexes changed. Michael may need to be
>> running 16.04 to test this with any accuracy.
>>
>> By way of explanation:
>>
>> licensecheck is a tool that checklicenses.py uses - but is *not*
>> something we ship, which means that
>>
>> 1) if you don't have it installed on your system,
>> checklicenses.py won't work, and I suspect only (some?) Linux distributions
>> provide it as part of the distribution (and even there you might have to
>> install the right package - in particular, Microsoft don't, as far as I
>> know, ship it with Windows;
>>
>> 2) if version X.Y of a given OS has one version of licensecheck,
>> and version X+1.Z of that OS has a different version, and the two different
>> versions behave differently, that could cause checklicenses.py to behave
>> differently on the two different versions of that OS.
>>
>> So
>>
>> 1) checklicenses.py might not work on Windows unless you install
>> licensecheck
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2) checklicenses.py might start coughing up a lot more errors if
>> upgrading from Ubuntu 15.whatever to 16.whatever gives you a new version of
>> licensecheck that behaves differently in a way that causes more license
>> complaints.
>>
>> (I just discovered this a few minutes ago, when I went looking for
>> licensecheck.  It doesn't ship with OS X, either.)
>>
>>
> I did look a bit for licensecheck and it appears to be a Perl script
> available as a Debian (and RPM) package devscripts as suggested by João, a
> package for Debian package maintainers.  As such, it isn't available for
> Windows.  The checklicenses.py script should probably check for the
> existence of licensecheck before trying to open it as a subprocess.
>
>
There is a Cygwin licensecheck package, which installed for me, but doesn't
run.  The Perl stuff fails for dependencies, and attempting to fix that
leads you down the rabbit hole of cpan module dependencies, so I gave up.

-- 
Graham Bloice
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

2016-08-05 Thread Graham Bloice

On 5 August 2016 at 10:45, Guy Harris  wrote:

> On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:00 AM, João Valverde  ulisboa.pt> wrote:
>
> > On 08/05/2016 08:56 AM, Alexis La Goutte wrote:
> >> I confirm ;-) (too slow...)
> >>
> >> But it is strange don't get the same warning between Ubuntu 14.04 and
> >> 16.04
> >
> > I assume the licensecheck regexes changed. Michael may need to be
> running 16.04 to test this with any accuracy.
>
> By way of explanation:
>
> licensecheck is a tool that checklicenses.py uses - but is *not* something
> we ship, which means that
>
> 1) if you don't have it installed on your system, checklicenses.py
> won't work, and I suspect only (some?) Linux distributions provide it as
> part of the distribution (and even there you might have to install the
> right package - in particular, Microsoft don't, as far as I know, ship it
> with Windows;
>
> 2) if version X.Y of a given OS has one version of licensecheck,
> and version X+1.Z of that OS has a different version, and the two different
> versions behave differently, that could cause checklicenses.py to behave
> differently on the two different versions of that OS.
>
> So
>
> 1) checklicenses.py might not work on Windows unless you install
> licensecheck
>
> and
>
> 2) checklicenses.py might start coughing up a lot more errors if
> upgrading from Ubuntu 15.whatever to 16.whatever gives you a new version of
> licensecheck that behaves differently in a way that causes more license
> complaints.
>
> (I just discovered this a few minutes ago, when I went looking for
> licensecheck.  It doesn't ship with OS X, either.)
>
>
I did look a bit for licensecheck and it appears to be a Perl script
available as a Debian (and RPM) package devscripts as suggested by João, a
package for Debian package maintainers.  As such, it isn't available for
Windows.  The checklicenses.py script should probably check for the
existence of licensecheck before trying to open it as a subprocess.

-- 
Graham Bloice
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:00 AM, João Valverde  
wrote:

> On 08/05/2016 08:56 AM, Alexis La Goutte wrote:
>> I confirm ;-) (too slow...)
>> 
>> But it is strange don't get the same warning between Ubuntu 14.04 and
>> 16.04
> 
> I assume the licensecheck regexes changed. Michael may need to be running 
> 16.04 to test this with any accuracy.

By way of explanation:

licensecheck is a tool that checklicenses.py uses - but is *not* something we 
ship, which means that

1) if you don't have it installed on your system, checklicenses.py 
won't work, and I suspect only (some?) Linux distributions provide it as part 
of the distribution (and even there you might have to install the right package 
- in particular, Microsoft don't, as far as I know, ship it with Windows;

2) if version X.Y of a given OS has one version of licensecheck, and 
version X+1.Z of that OS has a different version, and the two different 
versions behave differently, that could cause checklicenses.py to behave 
differently on the two different versions of that OS.

So

1) checklicenses.py might not work on Windows unless you install 
licensecheck

and

2) checklicenses.py might start coughing up a lot more errors if 
upgrading from Ubuntu 15.whatever to 16.whatever gives you a new version of 
licensecheck that behaves differently in a way that causes more license 
complaints.

(I just discovered this a few minutes ago, when I went looking for 
licensecheck.  It doesn't ship with OS X, either.)
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py




On 08/05/2016 08:56 AM, Alexis La Goutte wrote:

I confirm ;-) (too slow...)

But it is strange don't get the same warning between Ubuntu 14.04 and
16.04


I assume the licensecheck regexes changed. Michael may need to be 
running 16.04 to test this with any accuracy.


While on the subject of checklicenses.py, should BSD + GPLv2 (only) be 
whitelisted? The airpcap license situation needs some attention.




Cheers

Le vendredi 5 août 2016, João Valverde > a écrit :



On 08/05/2016 04:03 AM, Michael Mann wrote:

I thought I'd try to cut down on some of the "noise" created by
checklicenses.py and creating exceptions for files that
obviously don't
need a license header (COPYING/AUTHORS files in plugins for
example).  I
thought it would simply be a matter of running the script,
seeing the
output, and then tweaking to add the necessary exceptions.
However, I can't seem to run this on Windows.  Is it possible to
run on
Windows? (quick googling appears to say no).  I have a lubuntu
setup,
but my skills are weak there.  I made a few attempts with sudo
apt-get,
but that also didn't seem to be able to get the script to work.

Any suggestions?


It works on (l)ubuntu. Try:

  sudo apt-get install devscripts
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev

Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev


mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe



___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py

2016-08-05 Thread Alexis La Goutte

I confirm ;-) (too slow...)

But it is strange don't get the same warning between Ubuntu 14.04 and
16.04

Cheers

Le vendredi 5 août 2016, João Valverde  a
écrit :

>
>
> On 08/05/2016 04:03 AM, Michael Mann wrote:
>
>> I thought I'd try to cut down on some of the "noise" created by
>> checklicenses.py and creating exceptions for files that obviously don't
>> need a license header (COPYING/AUTHORS files in plugins for example).  I
>> thought it would simply be a matter of running the script, seeing the
>> output, and then tweaking to add the necessary exceptions.
>> However, I can't seem to run this on Windows.  Is it possible to run on
>> Windows? (quick googling appears to say no).  I have a lubuntu setup,
>> but my skills are weak there.  I made a few attempts with sudo apt-get,
>> but that also didn't seem to be able to get the script to work.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>
> It works on (l)ubuntu. Try:
>
>   sudo apt-get install devscripts
> 
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] checklicenses.py