* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license
@ 2018-10-04 17:27 Fabrice Fontaine
2018-10-06 13:41 ` Thomas Petazzoni
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Fabrice Fontaine @ 2018-10-04 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
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-$(NMAP_VERSION).tar.bz2
NMAP_DEPENDENCIES = libpcap
NMAP_CONF_OPTS = --without-liblua --without-zenmap \
--with-libdnet=included --with-liblinear=included
-NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0
+NMAP_LICENSE = GPL-2.0 with exceptions or commercial
NMAP_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
# needed by libpcap
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license
2018-10-04 17:27 [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license Fabrice Fontaine
@ 2018-10-06 13:41 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-10-06 17:37 ` Yann E. MORIN
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2018-10-06 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
Hello,
Adding Yann in Cc, licensing question below.
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:27:30 +0200, Fabrice Fontaine wrote:
> nmap is licensed under GPL-2.0 but with exceptions or a commercial
> license (see COPYING, especially the "IMPORTANT NMAP LICENSE TERMS"
> part)
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
> ---
> package/nmap/nmap.mk | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/package/nmap/nmap.mk b/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> index 420aec82d7..6b7502b02b 100644
> --- a/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> +++ b/package/nmap/nmap.mk
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ NMAP_SOURCE = nmap-$(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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license
2018-10-06 13:41 ` Thomas Petazzoni
@ 2018-10-06 17:37 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-10-07 19:40 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Yann E. MORIN @ 2018-10-06 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
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. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license
2018-10-06 17:37 ` Yann E. MORIN
@ 2018-10-07 19:40 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-10-08 6:43 ` Thomas Petazzoni
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2018-10-07 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license
2018-10-07 19:40 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
@ 2018-10-08 6:43 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-10-08 16:15 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2018-10-08 6:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license
2018-10-08 6:43 ` Thomas Petazzoni
@ 2018-10-08 16:15 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-10-08 19:06 ` Thomas Petazzoni
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arnout Vandecappelle @ 2018-10-08 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license
2018-10-08 16:15 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
@ 2018-10-08 19:06 ` Thomas Petazzoni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2018-10-08 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-08 19:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-10-04 17:27 [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license Fabrice Fontaine
2018-10-06 13:41 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-10-06 17:37 ` Yann E. MORIN
2018-10-07 19:40 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-10-08 6:43 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2018-10-08 16:15 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2018-10-08 19:06 ` Thomas Petazzoni
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.