Did nmap just become non-free?

Did nmap just become non-free?

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 801 bytes --]

Hello,

I updated the nmap license in 2323a7120a0f3ed96fedfff42e86c0aee97995c0.
Admittedly I had only skimmed through the text, which is "based on GPL2"
and "believed to be compliant with the 'Open Source Definition'", but
after a closer read of the annotated version:

  https://nmap.org/npsl/npsl-annotated.html

...which states:

  Proprietary vendors: This license does not allow you to redistribute
  Nmap source code or the executable for use with your software (stand
  alone or on an appliance).

...I'm fairly certain this is not an acceptable license for Guix, or
free software distributions in general.

So I think we should revert the license change, as well as the update
to 7.90 which introduced the new license.

Now to read the previous license text, perhaps that will help me sleep..

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: Did nmap just become non-free?

[Brett Gilio]

Marius Bakke <marius@gnu.org> writes:
>
> ...I'm fairly certain this is not an acceptable license for Guix, or
> free software distributions in general.
>

This is definitely not a consistent license for us.

> So I think we should revert the license change, as well as the update
> to 7.90 which introduced the new license.
>
> Now to read the previous license text, perhaps that will help me sleep..
>


As to how to fix it, I think we will need to revert the change, and also
make note of the FINAL version of nmap that was still compliant with FSDG.


-- 
Brett M. Gilio
<brettg@gnu.org>
https://brettgilio.com

Re: Did nmap just become non-free?

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --]

Brett Gilio <brettg@gnu.org> writes:

> Marius Bakke <marius@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> ...I'm fairly certain this is not an acceptable license for Guix, or
>> free software distributions in general.
>>
>
> This is definitely not a consistent license for us.

Having re-read the original text (without the annotations), the thing
that stands out is:

  Proprietary software companies wishing to use or incorporate Covered
  Software within their programs must contact Licensor to purchase a
  separate license. Open source developers who wish to incorporate parts
  of Covered Software into free software with conflicting licenses may
  write Licensor to request a waiver of terms.

From <https://svn.nmap.org/nmap/LICENSE>.

So a "proprietary software company" cannot use or incorporate nmap
within a program, even if that program is free (as in software)?

>> So I think we should revert the license change, as well as the update
>> to 7.90 which introduced the new license.
>>
>> Now to read the previous license text, perhaps that will help me sleep..
>>
>
>
> As to how to fix it, I think we will need to revert the change, and also
> make note of the FINAL version of nmap that was still compliant with FSDG.

I'll see what licensing@fsf.org has to say first.

PS: Licenses make terrible bed-side reading!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: Did nmap just become non-free?

[Brett Gilio]

Marius Bakke <marius@gnu.org> writes:

> Having re-read the original text (without the annotations), the thing
> that stands out is:
>
>   Proprietary software companies wishing to use or incorporate Covered
>   Software within their programs must contact Licensor to purchase a
>   separate license. Open source developers who wish to incorporate parts
>   of Covered Software into free software with conflicting licenses may
>   write Licensor to request a waiver of terms.
>
> From <https://svn.nmap.org/nmap/LICENSE>.
>
> So a "proprietary software company" cannot use or incorporate nmap
> within a program, even if that program is free (as in software)?

I believe that clause about "proprietary software companies" (if such a
thing could even be defined, legally) violates freedom 0.

Do let me know what the licensing lab says.

-- 
Brett M. Gilio
<brettg@gnu.org>
https://brettgilio.com

Re: Did nmap just become non-free?

[zimoun]

Hi Marius,

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 00:13, Marius Bakke <marius@gnu.org> wrote:

> > This is definitely not a consistent license for us.
>
> Having re-read the original text (without the annotations), the thing
> that stands out is:
>
>   Proprietary software companies wishing to use or incorporate Covered
>   Software within their programs must contact Licensor to purchase a
>   separate license. Open source developers who wish to incorporate parts
>   of Covered Software into free software with conflicting licenses may
>   write Licensor to request a waiver of terms.
>
> From <https://svn.nmap.org/nmap/LICENSE>.

IANAL, it’s a weird way to "double" license; it’s fine since it’s GPLv2
too.


> I'll see what licensing@fsf.org has to say first.

For the record, the free GNU/linux distributions Parabola (listed here
[1]) distributes "nmap": 

   <https://www.parabola.nu/packages/?q=nmap>

It will be interesting to know what FSF licensing will say.


> PS: Licenses make terrible bed-side reading!

Boring enough to want to sleep fast? ;-)


All the best,
simon

Re: Did nmap just become non-free?

[Brett Gilio]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

>
> It will be interesting to know what FSF licensing will say.
>

Indeed, this may need to be opened on the FSDG mailing list.

-- 
Brett M. Gilio
<brettg@gnu.org>
https://brettgilio.com

Re: Did nmap just become non-free?

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:12:45AM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote:
>   Proprietary software companies wishing to use or incorporate Covered
>   Software within their programs must contact Licensor to purchase a
>   separate license. Open source developers who wish to incorporate parts
>   of Covered Software into free software with conflicting licenses may
>   write Licensor to request a waiver of terms.
> 
> From <https://svn.nmap.org/nmap/LICENSE>.
> 
> So a "proprietary software company" cannot use or incorporate nmap
> within a program, even if that program is free (as in software)?

the formulation is weird, but I am reading this more as "you cannot
incorporate this software into a proprietary one", which more or less
summarises the difference between the GPL and the LGPL.

In guix/licenses.scm, the previous entry for nmap (dating from 2016),
instead of providing a link to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/ , gave one
to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Nmap , which classifies the
license as free, but incompatible with the GPL.

It would be nice to get feedback from the FSF on the question, indeed;
but I am less pessimistic than you!

Andreas