Skip to contentSkip to conversation

nmap: update license

PATCH Superseded Fabrice Fontaine 4 participants 7 messages Oct 4, 2018 – Oct 8, 2018

v1 of 2 Superseded Latest is v2 →

lore
Share & tools
lore

Fabrice Fontaine

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 nmap: update license

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 <[email protected]>
---
 package/nmap/nmap.mk | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
package/nmap/nmap.mk +1 -1
index 420aec82d7..6b7502b02b 100644
@@ -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
Signature · 1 line
2.17.1
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 nmap: update license

Hello,

Adding Yann in Cc, licensing question below.

Quoted 14 lines · 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 <[email protected]>
---
 package/nmap/nmap.mk | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
package/nmap/nmap.mk +0 -0
index 420aec82d7..6b7502b02b 100644

package/nmap/nmap.mk NMAP_SOURCE = nmap-$(NMAP_VERSION).tar.bz2 · line 13

Quoted 5 lines
package/nmap/nmap.mk +1 -1
@@ -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 ?

Quoted 3 lines
package/nmap/nmap.mk +0 -0
 NMAP_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
 
 # needed by libpcap
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
#2 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 nmap: update license

Thomas, Fabrice, All,

On 2018-10-06 15:41 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:

Quoted 25 lines · Fabrice Fontaine
Quoted 14 lines

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 <[email protected]>
---
 package/nmap/nmap.mk | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
package/nmap/nmap.mk +0 -0
index 420aec82d7..6b7502b02b 100644

package/nmap/nmap.mk NMAP_SOURCE = nmap-$(NMAP_VERSION).tar.bz2 · line 13

Quoted 5 lines
package/nmap/nmap.mk +1 -1
@@ -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).

Quoted 2 lines

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.

Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 3 lines
package/nmap/nmap.mk +0 -0
 NMAP_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
 
 # needed by libpcap
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Signature · 6 lines
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  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.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
#3 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 nmap: update license

Quoted 10 lines · Yann E. MORIN

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.

Quoted 6 lines

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

Signature · 6 lines
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
#4 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 nmap: update license

Hello,

Quoted 18 lines · Arnout Vandecappelle
Quoted 10 lines · Yann E. MORIN

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.

Quoted 6 lines

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... :-/

Quoted 7 lines

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

Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
#5 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 nmap: update license

Quoted 24 lines · Thomas Petazzoni

Hello,

Quoted 21 lines · Arnout Vandecappelle
Quoted 10 lines · Yann E. MORIN

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.

Quoted 6 lines

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.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines

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

Signature · 6 lines
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
#6 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 nmap: update license

Hello,

Quoted 4 lines · Arnout Vandecappelle
Quoted 1 line

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.

Quoted 2 lines

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

Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com