From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:43:54 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] nmap: update license In-Reply-To: References: <20181004172730.12889-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> <20181006154143.44ec552a@windsurf> <20181006173750.GF2869@scaer> Message-ID: <20181008084354.67f19f1e@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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