[oe] [PATCH meta-oe 5/9] nerperf: add

Thu Dec 29 18:19:04 UTC 2011

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Luo Zhenhua-B19537
<B19537 at freescale.com> wrote:
> May I know which license type should be put in the recipe?
>
> LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
>
> Or
>
> LICENSE = "Netperf 4"

No, what I meant was, look at the version of Netperf, called Netperf 4.

http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf4/

It's license would be GPL-2.0+.

>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Zhenhua
>
>
>
> From: Flanagan, Elizabeth [mailto:elizabeth.flanagan at intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:38 AM
> To: Luo Zhenhua-B19537
> Cc: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>
> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH meta-oe 5/9] nerperf: add
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Luo Zhenhua-B19537 <B19537 at freescale.com>
> wrote:
>
> I have sent an email to netperf-feedback at netperf.org to query the
> appropriate license type yesterday and not response.
>
> I'd like to adopt following option, does it make sense?
>
>> > 2. We'll need to add a Netperf license to common-licenses and set
>> > LICENSE = "Netperf"
>
>
> Yes, I agree. Although the Netperf license isn't really compatible with any
> OSI compliant license I know of and may cause end user problems. One option
> is to use Netperf 4 which is in fact GPL compliant. In that case it would be
> licensed as LICENSE = "GPL-2.0+"
>
> If netperf 4 was equivalent from a functional standpoint, I'd go consider
> route, as the Netperf 2.x.x license can be problematic for some end users,
> I'm sure.
>
> -b
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Zhenhua
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Luo Zhenhua-B19537
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:32 AM
>> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>> Subject: RE: [oe] [PATCH meta-oe 5/9] nerperf: add
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> I saw netperf is licensed under "netperf" in oe
>>
>> http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded/plain/recipes/netperf/netperf_2.4.4.bb.
>>
>> Anyway, I will send an email to the author to query about the license
>> type.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Zhenhua
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Flanagan, Elizabeth [mailto:elizabeth.flanagan at intel.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:32 AM
>> > To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org; Luo Zhenhua-B19537
>> > Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH meta-oe 5/9] nerperf: add
>> >
>
>> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On (16/12/11 10:22), Koen Kooi wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Op 16 dec. 2011, om 10:19 heeft Luo Zhenhua-B19537 het volgende
>> > >> geschreven:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Hello Koen,
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> >> From: openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org
>> > >> >> [mailto:openembedded- devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On
>> > >> >> Behalf Of Koen Kooi
>> > >> >> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:52 PM
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>> +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-benchmark/netperf/netperf_2.4.4.bb @@
>
>> > >> >>> +++ -0,0
>> > >> >>> +++ +1,47
>
>> > >> >>> @@ +DESCRIPTION="Network performance benchmark including tests
>> > >> >>> for TCP, UDP, sockets, ATM and more." +SECTION =
>> > >> >>> "console/network"
>> > >> >>> +HOMEPAGE = "http://www.netperf.org/" +LICENSE = "netperf"
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Can you include a comment on what type of license netperf is?
>> > >> >> MIT like, BSD like, GPL like?
>> > >> > [Luo Zhenhua-B19537] May I know which license type should be with
>> > >> > following
>> > COPYING content?
>> > >>
>> > >> That looks like a BSD or MIT derivative, maybe Beth can give us
>> > >> some guidance on what to use as LICENSE
>> > >
>> > > it says "for non-commercial purposes only"
>> >
>> > Yeah.... in this case, I would do one of two things (and I have a
>> > feeling one will be more valid that the other):
>> >
>> > 1. Email the author and see if we can use BSD-4-Clause. My guess is no.
>> > 2. We'll need to add a Netperf license to common-licenses and set
>> > LICENSE = "Netperf"
>> >
>> > I've checked the openSuSE Build Service and they have this as an
>> > "Other" license, so, check with the author first, but be prepared to
>
>> > add Netperf to the common- licenses directory.
>
>> >
>> > And yes, Koen is right. I wouldn't use BSD or MIT for this,
>> > specifically because of the non-commercial clause in (ii).
>> >
>> > -b
>> >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> regards,
>> > >>
>> > >> Koen
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >              Copyright (C) 1993 Hewlett-Packard Company
>> > >> >                         ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  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.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  1.  The enclosed software and documentation is made available at
>> > >> > no
>> > >> >      charge in order to advance the general development of
>> > >> >      high-performance networking products.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  2.  You may not delete any copyright notices contained in the
>> > >> >      software or documentation. All hard copies, and copies in
>> > >> >      source code or object code form, of the software or
>> > >> >      documentation (including modifications) must contain at
>> > >> > least
>> > >> >      one of the copyright notices.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  3.  The enclosed software and documentation has not been
>> > >> > subjected
>> > >> >      to testing and quality control and is not a Hewlett-Packard
>> > >> > Co.
>> > >> >      product. At a future time, Hewlett-Packard Co. may or may
>> > >> > not
>> > >> >      offer a version of the software and documentation as a
>> > >> > product.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  4.  THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS".
>> > >> >      HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE USE,
>> > >> >      REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE
>> > >> > OR
>> > >> >      DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE A THIRD PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
>> > >> >      PROPERTY RIGHTS. HP DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE OR
>> > >> >      DOCUMENTATION IS ERROR FREE. HP DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES,
>> > >> >      EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE AND THE
>> > >> >      DOCUMENTATION. HP SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF
>> > >> >      MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  5.  HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WILL NOT IN ANY EVENT BE LIABLE FOR
>> > >> > ANY
>> > >> >      DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
>> > >> > DAMAGES
>> > >> >      (INCLUDING LOST PROFITS) RELATED TO ANY USE, REPRODUCTION,
>> > >> >      MODIFICATION, OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE OR
>> > >> > DOCUMENTATION.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Best Regards,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Zhenhua
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> > >> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>> > >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-de
>> > >> ve
>> > >> l
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > -Khem
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> > > Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>> > > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-dev
>> > > el
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Elizabeth Flanagan
>> > Yocto Project
>> > Build and Release
>
>
>
>
> --
> Elizabeth Flanagan
> Yocto Project
> Build and Release

-- 
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release