Pierre Warnier b516b87be8 docs: the upstream suite is not GNU, and is mostly BSD-licensed (#322) ...

* docs: the upstream suite is not GNU, and is mostly BSD-licensed

The README called the original shadow-utils a GNU project and GPL-2.0+,
and CONTRIBUTING grounded the clean-room policy on that. Neither holds,
as #320 points out: shadow-maint/shadow is not a GNU project, and its
tree is mostly BSD-3-Clause with GPL-2.0-or-later files among it --
su.c, vipw.c, contributed scripts, some translated manuals. Checked
against Debian's copyright file for the package and Fedora's licence
tag, BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later, not against the source.

The policy stands, on the accurate ground: this is an independent MIT
implementation that copies from neither part. Copying from the BSD part
would carry attribution terms this project does not take on; from the
GPL part, a derivative work; sorting files by licence would mean reading
them. So the rule is unchanged: do not read that tree.

Every "GNU" that meant upstream is now "upstream" or "the distribution's
package": README, CONTRIBUTING, Makefile, the man pages' section heading,
the e2e image and suite, test comments. make test-gnu-compat is make
test-upstream-compat and its script is renamed with it. The 2026-05-04
audit record gets an erratum at the top and is otherwise left as it was
run.

* docs: the last upstream-as-GNU mentions in the compat suite and the tool table

* tests: say upstream, not GNU, in the test comments and skip messages too

* tests: one more

* docs: keep the README's clean-room line as it was, reworded around it

2026-09-21 15:52:51 +02:00

..

mod.rs

docs: the upstream suite is not GNU, and is mostly BSD-licensed (#322)

2026-09-21 15:52:51 +02:00