Hi all,
I'm considering to package netperf [1]. The license seems to be a custom HP license, but it is similar to BSD. I've attached the license text, which you can also find in the netperf repository [2].
Is this license suitable for Fedora? If so, what should the license tag be?
Thanks for your advice!
Kind regards Till
[1] https://hewlettpackard.github.io/netperf/ [2] https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf/blob/master/COPYING
On 23.6.2018 23:47, Till Hofmann wrote:
Hi all,
I'm considering to package netperf [1]. The license seems to be a custom HP license, but it is similar to BSD. I've attached the license text, which you can also find in the netperf repository [2].
Is this license suitable for Fedora? If so, what should the license tag be?
The "for non-commercial purposes only" part in the license raises a red flag. So I would say no (I'm not a representative of Fedora Legal, juts my opinion).
On 06/23/2018 11:57 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 23.6.2018 23:47, Till Hofmann wrote:
Hi all,
I'm considering to package netperf [1]. The license seems to be a custom HP license, but it is similar to BSD. I've attached the license text, which you can also find in the netperf repository [2].
Is this license suitable for Fedora? If so, what should the license tag be?
The "for non-commercial purposes only" part in the license raises a red flag. So I would say no (I'm not a representative of Fedora Legal, juts my opinion).
Thanks for the feedback. Although the restriction "for non-commercial purposes only" is only on distributing the software and documentation and not on using it, I guess it is still a no-go? And I assume this also holds for COPR?
My goal is to package flent, which is also distributed by Debian (https://packages.debian.org/sid/flent), but it's not really of any use without netperf.
Kind regards, Till
On 06/25/2018 11:19 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Although the restriction "for non-commercial purposes only" is only on distributing the software and documentation and not on using it, I guess it is still a no-go? And I assume this also holds for COPR?
Yes. Violates Number 1 of the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd) and Freedoms 2 & 3 of the Free Software Definition.
Not okay for Fedora or COPR (they have the same legal requirements).
~tom
On 06/25/2018 05:30 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 06/25/2018 11:19 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Although the restriction "for non-commercial purposes only" is only on distributing the software and documentation and not on using it, I guess it is still a no-go? And I assume this also holds for COPR?
Yes. Violates Number 1 of the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd) and Freedoms 2 & 3 of the Free Software Definition.
Not okay for Fedora or COPR (they have the same legal requirements).
~tom
Thank you, Tom. I'll look for a different network benchmarking tool, then.
Kind regards, Till
-
Miro Hrončok -
Till Hofmann -
Tom Callaway