btrfs-progs: tests/sha* copyright clarity and compliance fixes
cover btrfs-progs: tests/sha* copyright clarity and compliance fixes
Hi,
Thank you very much for fixing up the tests! A couple of releases ago I noticed that they were reliably passing, but I had to exclude the tests from my uploads because the BCP 78 license is explicitely banned from Debian. I plan to study Debian's autopkgtest framework and then configure the package to automatically run the tests in a VM on one of the buildservers for every version update.
The first patch adds what I believe is a necessary header for license compliance, and the second removes the misleading boilerplate. Please consult the annotated commit messages for more information.
Thank you,
Nicholas
Nicholas D Steeves (2):
Add required IETF Trust copyright
Remove misleading BCP 78 boilerplate
tests/sha-private.h | 4 ++++ tests/sha224-256.c | 20 -------------------- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.11.0
PATCH 1/2 Add required IETF Trust copyright
--- tests/sha-private.h | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
tests/sha-private.h +4 -0
@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@/************************ sha-private.h ************************/ /***************** See RFC 6234 for details. *******************/ +/* Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as */ +/* authors of the code. All rights reserved. */ +/* See sha.h for terms of use and redistribution. */ +#ifndef _SHA_PRIVATE__H#define _SHA_PRIVATE__H/*
Signature · 1 line
2.11.0
PATCH 2/2 Remove misleading BCP 78 boilerplate
In reply to Nicholas D SteevesBCP 78 applies to RFC 6234, but sha224-256.c is Simplified BSD.
This causes the following lintian error when building on Debian and Debian derivatives:
E: btrfs-progs source: license-problem-non-free-RFC-BCP78
tests/sha224-256.c
Please consult the following email from [email protected] for more information:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2017/08/msg00004.html
--- tests/sha224-256.c | 20 -------------------- 1 file changed, 20 deletions(-)
tests/sha224-256.c +0 -20
@@ -1,23 +1,3 @@ -/* -RFC 6234 SHAs, HMAC-SHAs, and HKDF May 2011 - - -Copyright Notice - -Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the -document authors. All rights reserved. - -This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal -Provisions Relating to IETF Documents -(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of -publication of this document. Please review these documents -carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect -to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must -include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of -the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as -described in the Simplified BSD License. -*/ -/************************* sha224-256.c ************************/ /***************** See RFC 6234 for details. *******************/ /* Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as */
Signature · 1 line
2.11.0
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove misleading BCP 78 boilerplate
Quoted 5 lines · Nicholas D Steeves
BCP 78 applies to RFC 6234, but
sha224-256.cis Simplified BSD.This causes the following lintian error when building on Debian and Debian derivatives:
Quoted 7 lines
E: btrfs-progs source: license-problem-non-free-RFC-BCP78
tests/sha224-256.cPlease consult the following email from [email protected] for more information:
Thanks, this looks like I've copied too much from the RFC and was not aware of the BCP license issues. I believe the copyright notice(s) past the line mentioning the filename(s) should be enough to satisfy the licensing requirements and also the debian license checker.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove misleading BCP 78 boilerplate
Hi David,
Quoted 12 lines · David Sterba
Quoted 11 lines · Nicholas D Steeves
BCP 78 applies to RFC 6234, but
sha224-256.cis Simplified BSD.This causes the following lintian error when building on Debian and Debian derivatives:
E: btrfs-progs source: license-problem-non-free-RFC-BCP78
tests/sha224-256.cPlease consult the following email from [email protected] for more information:
Quoted 6 lines
Thanks, this looks like I've copied too much from the RFC and was not aware of the BCP license issues. I believe the copyright notice(s) past the line mentioning the filename(s) should be enough to satisfy the licensing requirements and also the debian license checker.
Thank you for applying these so quickly, and for the new release :-)
Sincerely,
Nicholas