Re: BSD-2-Clause with 'in this position and unchanged' addition? libarchive

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Wed, 03 Sep 2025 10:35:24 -0700

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<39932479.10thIPus4b@soren-desktop>

On Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:56:15 AM Mountain Standard Time Simon 
Josefsson wrote:
> Hi
> 
> While working on Tarsnap's that embeds a copy of 'libarchive' I noticed
> a discrepency in the BSD-2-Clause boiler plate of libarchive.
> 
> Compare https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/libarchive/
archive.h
> 
> ...
>  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>  * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> ...
> 
> with
> 
> https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/libarchive/
archive_write_dis
> k_private.h
> 
> ...
>  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
>  *    in this position and unchanged.
>  * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> ...
> 
> Note the added line with 'in this position and unchanged'.
> 
> I don't see this mentioned in debian/copyright which I assume is a
> problem that ought to be fixed:
> 
> https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/debian/copyright
> 
> The license seems similar in spirit to the BSD-2-Clause-first-lines
> license:
> 
> https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause-first-lines.html
> 
> The only classification of this variant that I can find is this one:
> 
> https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/bsd-unchanged
> 
> The FSF, OSI, and SPDX does not appear to recognize/discuss this
> variant, or at least I cannot find it on their sites.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1) Is the license DFSG-compliant?
> 
> 2) Must the license text including that sentence be mentioned in
> debian/copyright?
> 
> 3) Is it correct to use a 'BSD-2-Clause' keyword that expanded to a pure
> BSD-2-Clause license text (i.e., without the sentence), or must a new
> stanza (e.g., 'BSD-2-Clause-unchanged') be used that expands to the
> appropriate blurb include the missing sentence?
> 
> I'm guessing Yes, Yes, and BSD-2-Clause-unchanged, but that would just
> be my opinion.

I agree with you in all three cases:  Yes, Yes, and BSD-2-Clause-unchanged (or 
whatever you feel like calling it).

Thank you for being so diligent in checking the license text.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)