From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeU5q-0000sM-F0 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:09:38 +0100 Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2012 08:55:20 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,192,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="257226851" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.123.9]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2012 08:55:07 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Joe MacDonald Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:55:06 +0000 Message-ID: <5531449.L0Ch4936zy@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.9.3 (Linux/3.5.0-18-generic; KDE/4.9.3; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20121130163410.GP6912@windriver.com> References: <50B8DC5A.7050203@windriver.com> <20121130163410.GP6912@windriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: netperf in meta-networking X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:09:38 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday 30 November 2012 11:34:11 Joe MacDonald wrote: > [netperf in meta-networking] On 12.11.30 (Fri 10:18) Mark Hatle wrote: > > I was helping someone with building netperf from meta-networking > > last night, and stumbled on what I think is a bug. > > > > SUMMARY = "A networking benchmarking tool" > > DESCRIPTION = "Network performance benchmark including tests for > > TCP, UDP, sockets, ATM and more." > > SECTION = "console/network" > > HOMEPAGE = "http://www.netperf.org/" > > LICENSE = "netperf" > > LICENSE_FLAGS = "commercial" > > > > In the above, the LICENSE_FLAGS are set to 'commercial'. I think > > this is incorrect. It should be set to 'non-commercial'. > > > > There is a subtle difference between them which is why I think it's a > > bug... > > > > commercial -- there are some commercial requirements necessary to > > use this recipe in a commercial device... you are responsible for > > understanding them and doing whatever is necessary... (for > > non-commercial devices you can likely use it...) > > > > non-commercial -- this item is restricted to non-commercial users > > only. As in the case of netperf, the license says it's only for > > non-commercial use. > > > > So anyway, my suggestion is to simply change the value of the flag. > > Ugh. I had a quick look around and the first thing I found was this: > > http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf4/trunk/include/netperf.h This is netperf4 though which I gather is distinct from the version of netperf we are building. > So I had a look at the netperf source tree fetched by bitbake during a > build. The COPYING file says this: > > The enclosed software and documentation includes copyrighted works > of Hewlett-Packard Co. For as long as you comply with the following > limitations, you are hereby authorized to (i) use, reproduce, and > modify the software and documentation, and to (ii) distribute the > software and documentation, including modifications, for > non-commercial purposes only. > > So I'm inclined to agree, this sounds like the definition of > non-commercial above to me. It's a subtlety - in either case you can't just go ahead and use it for commercial use. I wouldn't object to changing it to "non-commercial" though if it makes more sense. Would it be practical for us to move to netperf4 which is GPLv2+ licensed? I'm not sure if it is a complete replacement for netperf 2.x and we'd need to confirm that first, but at least the license is more reasonable... Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre