Dear Maintainer,

The file stdint-msvc2008.h [1] from libuv1 package is reported by
licensecheck as:

$ licensecheck --copyright include/uv/stdint-msvc2008.h
include/uv/stdint-msvc2008.h: BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License BSD (unspecified)
  [Copyright: 2006-2008 Alexander Chemeris]

Unfortunately, the header of this file [1] is a BSD-3-Clause license.

I guess that licensecheck is tripped by the quotes around "AS IS"
which are actually a mashup of back-quotes and quotes: ``AS IS''

I've looked at regexp-pattern-license code, and it looks like OPenSSL
can cope with backquote and quotes. BUt I don't know how to apply this
to BSD regexp.

Could you fix this issue ?

All the best

Dod

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libuv1/blob/d5260384c589f80f84af4afcd930fd33e735bc86/include/uv/stdint-msvc2008.h

Hi Dominique,

Quoting Dominique Dumont (2020-02-04 18:16:47)

Thanks for an interesting case - albeit differently from what you
highlighted...

I believe Licensecheck correctly detects the oddly quoted ``AS IS''
(which amusingly enough stems from cp1252 documents wrongly parsed as
ISO-8858-1 and then choking when later parsed as UTF-8 (or something
along those lines): Licensecheck should look for "0-2 non-spaces, then
AS or as, then dash-or-space, then IS or is, then 0-2 non-spaces".

What I think is instead the interesting thing here is the licensing
clause itself: Third clause of BSD-3-Clause is commonly referred to as
the non-endorsement clause, and speaks in negatives:

Now, the licensing terms in stdint-msvc2008.h sort-of omits the
organisation part, but really no - it drops the negations and becomes an
endorsement _permission_ which is really a non-clause.

Do you agree with my interpretation?


 - Jonas

yes.

I wonder how I did not see this difference ...

Anyway, this clause is seldom used. A search on the web finds that this clause
is used by GLEW (OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library).

I wonder if this license should be considered as a BDS-2-clause or yet another
BSD mutation which should be copied verbatim in debian/copyright...

All the best

Quoting Dominique Dumont (2020-02-05 09:48:36)
big testsuite - mis-detects that pattern as bsd-new (a.k.a.
BSD-3-Clause), and reported that as a bug:
https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/issues/1889

Turns out that the pattern is a specific author making a mistake that
was quickly corrected when aware of it:
https://github.com/chemeris/msinttypes/issues/7 and b)

Current view of Philippe Ombredanne (author of ScanCode) is that it
should be treated as BSD-3-Clause (since that was the intended
licensing) - I am of the opinion that it should be treated as a
variation of BSD-2-Clause (since in my understanding that is what it
legally is) and I think our scanners could then optionally hint at the
meta level about _why_ it is a mutation (e.g. flagging it as "imperfect"
as per my idea about "qualities" - see bug#950363).


 - Jonas

Good morning,

 Attached please find your PDF account statement and invoice as of 05/11/2023. Please notice you have a past due balance  for invoice IN0099203.

 Please provide payment as soon as possible.




 Best Regards,
 Shawneen Chisholm
 Accounts Receivable Coordinator

 UNITED RENTALS, INC.
Branch L02 BONNYVILLE
4920 56TH AVE
BONNYVILLE AB T9N 2N8 CA
780-826-7610


 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s). This may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please alert the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this message or any attachments by an individual or entity other than the intended recipient is prohibited