[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license

[Fabrice Fontaine]

nmap is licensed under GPL-2.0 but with exceptions or a commercial
license (see COPYING, especially the "IMPORTANT NMAP LICENSE TERMS"
part)

Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
---
 package/nmap/nmap.mk | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/package/nmap/nmap.mk b/package/nmap/nmap.mk
index 420aec82d7..6b7502b02b 100644
--- a/package/nmap/nmap.mk
+++ b/package/nmap/nmap.mk
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ NMAP_SOURCE = nmap-$(NMAP_VERSION).tar.bz2
 NMAP_DEPENDENCIES = libpcap
 NMAP_CONF_OPTS = --without-liblua --without-zenmap \
 	--with-libdnet=included --with-liblinear=included
-NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0
+NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 with exceptions or commercial
 NMAP_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
 
 # needed by libpcap
-- 
2.17.1

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

Adding Yann in Cc, licensing question below.

On Thu,  4 Oct 2018 19:27:30 +0200, Fabrice Fontaine wrote:
> nmap is licensed under GPL-2.0 but with exceptions or a commercial
> license (see COPYING, especially the "IMPORTANT NMAP LICENSE TERMS"
> part)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
> ---
>  package/nmap/nmap.mk | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/package/nmap/nmap.mk b/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> index 420aec82d7..6b7502b02b 100644
> --- a/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> +++ b/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ NMAP_SOURCE = nmap-$(NMAP_VERSION).tar.bz2
>  NMAP_DEPENDENCIES = libpcap
>  NMAP_CONF_OPTS = --without-liblua --without-zenmap \
>  	--with-libdnet=included --with-liblinear=included
> -NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0
> +NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 with exceptions or commercial

I agree with the GPL-2.0 with exceptions, Debian also calls the license
nmap-GPL-2
(https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/n/nmap/nmap_7.70+dfsg1-3_copyright).

However, I'm not sure about the "or commercial". We used to have that
for Qt, but dropped it, I'm not sure to remember why. Yann ?

>  NMAP_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
>  
>  # needed by libpcap



-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license

[Yann E. MORIN]

Thomas, Fabrice, All,

On 2018-10-06 15:41 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Thu,  4 Oct 2018 19:27:30 +0200, Fabrice Fontaine wrote:
> > nmap is licensed under GPL-2.0 but with exceptions or a commercial
> > license (see COPYING, especially the "IMPORTANT NMAP LICENSE TERMS"
> > part)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  package/nmap/nmap.mk | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/package/nmap/nmap.mk b/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> > index 420aec82d7..6b7502b02b 100644
> > --- a/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> > +++ b/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ NMAP_SOURCE = nmap-$(NMAP_VERSION).tar.bz2
> >  NMAP_DEPENDENCIES = libpcap
> >  NMAP_CONF_OPTS = --without-liblua --without-zenmap \
> >  	--with-libdnet=included --with-liblinear=included
> > -NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0
> > +NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 with exceptions or commercial
> 
> I agree with the GPL-2.0 with exceptions, Debian also calls the license
> nmap-GPL-2
> (https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/n/nmap/nmap_7.70+dfsg1-3_copyright).
> 
> However, I'm not sure about the "or commercial". We used to have that
> for Qt, but dropped it, I'm not sure to remember why. Yann ?

For Wt, we dropped the option of approving the opensource license. See
ce79e0b2306302f50663d587cd423ea427f6f8cb and following commits for the
full explanations.

The underlying reason is that the 'commercial' licensing terms are
negotiated, and different per users, and we never saw any such licnsing
terms, some of which may even prevent redistribution or even forbid any
publicity of the use of that package or whatnot (they are private terms,
they can be whatever).

As such, our licensing info can only act on publicly known information,
i.e. the licening terms that are available when downloading the package.

Note that this only means we have to know the licensing terms; it does
not imply that they be an open source or free license; they can be a
"proprietary" license, as long as it is publicly known.

So, now, about this specific nmap case... After reviwing the COPYING
file, I would just state:

    NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 w/ exception

But given how specific the nmap project states that they are really
*not* compatible with the GPL-2.0, and as such that exception should
rather be seen as a restriction to the GPL-2.0. So, this is a totally
different license, based on the GPL-2.0, but incompatible with it.

So, in the end, I would just state:

    NMAP_LICENSE = nmap license

and let the user sort the mess on their own, because we can't do much
better... :-/

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

> >  NMAP_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
> >  
> >  # needed by libpcap
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 6/10/18 19:37, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> So, now, about this specific nmap case... After reviwing the COPYING
> file, I would just state:
> 
>     NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 w/ exception
> 
> But given how specific the nmap project states that they are really
> *not* compatible with the GPL-2.0, and as such that exception should
> rather be seen as a restriction to the GPL-2.0. So, this is a totally
> different license, based on the GPL-2.0, but incompatible with it.
> 
> So, in the end, I would just state:
> 
>     NMAP_LICENSE = nmap license
> 
> and let the user sort the mess on their own, because we can't do much
> better... :-/

 I double-checked the nmap license file and I agree with Yann. "nmap license" is
the best we can do.

 To clarify: the license really is GPL-2.0 with OpenSSL exception. The
"additional restriction" is that they add an interpretation of what "derived
work" means exactly. It's not really a restriction, but it *does* change the
meaning of the license, so calling it GPL-2.0 is not accurate.


 Regards,
 Arnout

-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:40:18 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> On 6/10/18 19:37, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > So, now, about this specific nmap case... After reviwing the COPYING
> > file, I would just state:
> > 
> >     NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 w/ exception
> > 
> > But given how specific the nmap project states that they are really
> > *not* compatible with the GPL-2.0, and as such that exception should
> > rather be seen as a restriction to the GPL-2.0. So, this is a totally
> > different license, based on the GPL-2.0, but incompatible with it.
> > 
> > So, in the end, I would just state:
> > 
> >     NMAP_LICENSE = nmap license
> > 
> > and let the user sort the mess on their own, because we can't do much
> > better... :-/  
> 
>  I double-checked the nmap license file and I agree with Yann. "nmap license" is
> the best we can do.
> 
>  To clarify: the license really is GPL-2.0 with OpenSSL exception. The
> "additional restriction" is that they add an interpretation of what "derived
> work" means exactly. It's not really a restriction, but it *does* change the
> meaning of the license, so calling it GPL-2.0 is not accurate.

I don't know if that matters, but Debian calls it nmap-GPL-2.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 8/10/18 08:43, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:40:18 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>> On 6/10/18 19:37, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>>> So, now, about this specific nmap case... After reviwing the COPYING
>>> file, I would just state:
>>>
>>>     NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 w/ exception
>>>
>>> But given how specific the nmap project states that they are really
>>> *not* compatible with the GPL-2.0, and as such that exception should
>>> rather be seen as a restriction to the GPL-2.0. So, this is a totally
>>> different license, based on the GPL-2.0, but incompatible with it.
>>>
>>> So, in the end, I would just state:
>>>
>>>     NMAP_LICENSE = nmap license
>>>
>>> and let the user sort the mess on their own, because we can't do much
>>> better... :-/  
>>
>>  I double-checked the nmap license file and I agree with Yann. "nmap license" is
>> the best we can do.
>>
>>  To clarify: the license really is GPL-2.0 with OpenSSL exception. The
>> "additional restriction" is that they add an interpretation of what "derived
>> work" means exactly. It's not really a restriction, but it *does* change the
>> meaning of the license, so calling it GPL-2.0 is not accurate.
> 
> I don't know if that matters, but Debian calls it nmap-GPL-2.

 I think our convention is to use the SPDX term, and if it doesn't exist in SPDX
use "package license".

 I haven't checked though if nmap license exists in SPDX. They do have license
tags for some of the package-specific constructs.

 Regards,
 Arnout

-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 18:15:07 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

> > I don't know if that matters, but Debian calls it nmap-GPL-2.  
> 
>  I think our convention is to use the SPDX term, and if it doesn't exist in SPDX
> use "package license".

ACK. I just wanted to mention that Debian still considers somewhat
similar to GPL 2.0.

>  I haven't checked though if nmap license exists in SPDX. They do have license
> tags for some of the package-specific constructs.

I did, and there is no "nmap" license in the list of SPDX tags.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com