[oe] netperf in meta-networking

[Paul Eggleton]

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