* [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.