From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:40:18 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license In-Reply-To: <20181006173750.GF2869@scaer> References: <20181004172730.12889-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> <20181006154143.44ec552a@windsurf> <20181006173750.GF2869@scaer> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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