28 Mar
2023
28 Mar
'23
5:36 p.m.
Hi!
Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio installed
from Debian.
The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
- For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
- The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the debian package names, which
is incorrect
I will try with a newer system, like Debian Bullseye.
My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
Will have to check what syft is using, but this SBOM is not
very useful….
Cheers,
/O
Examples:
"cpe":
"cpe:2.3:a:kamailio-extra-modules:kamailio-extra-modules:5.3.9\\+bpo10:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"licenses": [
{
"license": {
"id": "Apache-1.0"
}
},
{
"license": {
"id": "BSD-2-Clause"
}
},
{
"license": {
"id": "BSD-3-Clause"
}
},
{
"license": {
"name": "Expat"
}
},
{
"license": {
"id": "GPL-2.0-only"
}
},
{
"license": {
"id": "GPL-2.0-or-later"
}
},
{
"license": {
"id": "GPL-2.0-or-later"
}
},
{
"license": {
"id": "ISC"
}
},
{
"license": {
"id": "MIT"
}
},
29 Mar
29 Mar
5:48 p.m.
Hi!
On 28/3/23 16:36, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Hi!
Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio installed
from Debian.
The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
- For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
- The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the debian package names, which
is incorrect
I will try with a newer system, like Debian Bullseye.
My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
the information of licenses in packaging is at debian/copyright [0]
[0] https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/pkg/kamailio/deb/debian/co…
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Victor Seva |
| : :' : linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org |
| `. `' PGP Key ID: 0x51A09B18CF5A5068 |
| `- Debian Developer |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
30 Mar
30 Mar
11:44 a.m.
On 29 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Hi!
On 28/3/23 16:36, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Ok, so that’s where it came from. The thing is that as you create a package of
Kamailiio,
in my view it’s distributed under GPL v2, regardless of the license of the source file.
Should we really list all those license in the package as it seems strange for a software
package to have multiple licenses. It’s not that users can select
which license they use Kamailio under.
I think this is more confusing and as these kind of tools become more used,
the confusion will be even bigger. Suddenly we have someone distributing Kamailio under
BSD
license since they belived they had a choice…
/O
Hi!
Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio installed
from Debian.
The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
- For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
- The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the debian package names, which
is incorrect
I will try with a newer system, like Debian Bullseye.
My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
the information of licenses in packaging is at debian/copyright [0]
[0] https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/pkg/kamailio/deb/debian/co…
noon
Hello Olle,
IMHO the Debian way is correct. This is also the way companies are doing it, some
examples:
https://www.mbvans.com/en/legal-notices/foss-disclosure
https://oss.bosch-cm.com/gm.html (click at one of the links for the licence terms for a
huge PDF)
The only way to "fix" this would be to rewrite the respective parts of the code
and then put it under another licence, or ask the original author(s) for permission to
re-licence.
You cannot distribute Kamailio under BSD licence, as many of its parts are GPLv2 or later,
as clearly indicated in the first section of the copyright file.
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 10:45
To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: [sr-dev] Re: Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 29 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Hi!
On 28/3/23 16:36, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Ok, so that’s where it came from. The thing is that as you create a package of
Kamailiio, in my view it’s distributed under GPL v2, regardless of the license of the
source file.
Should we really list all those license in the package as it seems strange for a software
package to have multiple licenses. It’s not that users can select which license they use
Kamailio under.
I think this is more confusing and as these kind of tools become more used, the confusion
will be even bigger. Suddenly we have someone distributing Kamailio under BSD license
since they belived they had a choice…
/O
Hi!
Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio installed
from Debian.
The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
- For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
- The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the debian
package names, which is incorrect I will try with a newer system, like Debian Bullseye.
My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
the information of licenses in packaging is at debian/copyright [0]
[0]
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/pkg/kamailio/deb/debi
an/copyright
12:10 p.m.
On 30 Mar 2023, at 11:00, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello Olle,
IMHO the Debian way is correct. This is also the way companies are doing it, some
examples:
https://www.mbvans.com/en/legal-notices/foss-disclosure
https://oss.bosch-cm.com/gm.html (click at one of the links for the licence terms for a
huge PDF)
I would say for a -sources package this is correct, but I don’t really
agree that it’s correct for the binary package.
The only way to "fix" this would be to rewrite the respective parts of the code
and then put it under another licence, or ask the original author(s) for permission to
re-licence.
You cannot distribute Kamailio under BSD licence, as many of its parts are GPLv2 or
later, as clearly indicated in the first section of the copyright file.
I know, but
reading the output can confuse people that we have a multi-license distribution of
Kamailio, which we clearly have not.
/O
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 10:45
To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: [sr-dev] Re: Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 29 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Hi!
On 28/3/23 16:36, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Ok, so that’s where it came from. The thing is that as you create a package of
Kamailiio, in my view it’s distributed under GPL v2, regardless of the license of the
source file.
Should we really list all those license in the package as it seems strange for a software
package to have multiple licenses. It’s not that users can select which license they use
Kamailio under.
I think this is more confusing and as these kind of tools become more used, the confusion
will be even bigger. Suddenly we have someone distributing Kamailio under BSD license
since they belived they had a choice…
/O Hi!
Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio installed
from Debian.
The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
- For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
- The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the debian
package names, which is incorrect I will try with a newer system, like Debian Bullseye.
My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
the information of licenses in packaging is at debian/copyright [0]
[0]
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/pkg/kamailio/deb/debi
an/copyright
1:51 p.m.
Hi Olle,
a compiler does not magically change the licence just by processing the source code and
producing binary code.
That would be an easy solution to many licencing issues. 😉
Its like e.g., a translation of a book. You can not claim that you own the copyright of a
book by simple translating it.
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 11:11
To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>
Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: Re: [sr-dev] Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 30 Mar 2023, at 11:00, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello Olle,
IMHO the Debian way is correct. This is also the way companies are doing it, some
examples:
https://www.mbvans.com/en/legal-notices/foss-disclosure
https://oss.bosch-cm.com/gm.html (click at one of the links for the
licence terms for a huge PDF)
I would say for a -sources package this is correct, but I don’t really agree that
it’s correct for the binary package.
The only way to "fix" this would be to rewrite the respective parts of the code
and then put it under another licence, or ask the original author(s) for permission to
re-licence.
You cannot distribute Kamailio under BSD licence, as many of its parts are GPLv2 or
later, as clearly indicated in the first section of the copyright file.
I know, but reading the output can confuse people that we have a multi-license
distribution of Kamailio, which we clearly have not.
/O
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 10:45
To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
<sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: [sr-dev] Re: Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 29 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Hi!
On 28/3/23 16:36, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Ok, so that’s where it came from. The thing is that as you create a package of
Kamailiio, in my view it’s distributed under GPL v2, regardless of the license of the
source file.
Should we really list all those license in the package as it seems strange for a software
package to have multiple licenses. It’s not that users can select which license they use
Kamailio under.
I think this is more confusing and as these kind of tools become more
used, the confusion will be even bigger. Suddenly we have someone
distributing Kamailio under BSD license since they belived they had a
choice…
/O
Hi!
Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio installed
from Debian.
The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
- For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
- The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the debian
package names, which is incorrect I will try with a newer system, like Debian Bullseye.
My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
the information of licenses in packaging is at debian/copyright [0]
[0]
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/pkg/kamailio/deb/deb
i
an/copyright
2:19 p.m.
On 30 Mar 2023, at 12:51, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hi Olle,
a compiler does not magically change the licence just by processing the source code and
producing binary code.
That would be an easy solution to many licencing issues. 😉
No but when it combines
a lot of source code and some of it is GPL, then the output is affected. That’s when
the stickyness of the GPL license applies and the combined software - including modules -
all run under the
GPL license regardless of what license the source code as text had.
The copyright remains exactly the same though.
Its like e.g., a translation of a book. You can not claim that you own the copyright of a
book by simple translating it.
I do understand that. I do not understand why your
adding that example in this discussion though. You’re mixing
copyright and the license to use the copyrighted work.
/O
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 11:11
To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>
Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: Re: [sr-dev] Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 30 Mar 2023, at 11:00, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello Olle,
IMHO the Debian way is correct. This is also the way companies are doing it, some
examples:
https://www.mbvans.com/en/legal-notices/foss-disclosure
https://oss.bosch-cm.com/gm.html (click at one of the links for the
licence terms for a huge PDF)
I would say for a -sources package this is correct,
but I don’t really agree that it’s correct for the binary package.
The only way to "fix" this would be to rewrite the respective parts of the code
and then put it under another licence, or ask the original author(s) for permission to
re-licence.
You cannot distribute Kamailio under BSD licence, as many of its parts are GPLv2 or
later, as clearly indicated in the first section of the copyright file.
I know,
but reading the output can confuse people that we have a multi-license distribution of
Kamailio, which we clearly have not.
/O
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 10:45
To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
<sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: [sr-dev] Re: Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 29 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Hi!
On 28/3/23 16:36, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Ok, so that’s where it came from. The thing is that as you create a package of
Kamailiio, in my view it’s distributed under GPL v2, regardless of the license of the
source file.
Should we really list all those license in the package as it seems strange for a software
package to have multiple licenses. It’s not that users can select which license they use
Kamailio under.
I think this is more confusing and as these kind of tools become more
used, the confusion will be even bigger. Suddenly we have someone
distributing Kamailio under BSD license since they belived they had a
choice…
/O Hi!
Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio installed
from Debian.
The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
- For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
- The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the debian
package names, which is incorrect I will try with a newer system, like Debian Bullseye.
My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
the information of licenses in packaging is at debian/copyright [0]
[0]
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/pkg/kamailio/deb/deb
i
an/copyright
5:39 p.m.
Hi Olle,
sure. What some people are doing is to list the common licence (e.g., GPLv2 or later)
prominently like in the help output etc.., and then provide a pointer to a file that
includes all the details, like the Debian copyright file discussed earlier. This is the
description about that information, its machine readable (I was not aware of that):
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 13:19
To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>
Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: Re: [sr-dev] Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 30 Mar 2023, at 12:51, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hi Olle,
a compiler does not magically change the licence just by processing the source code and
producing binary code.
That would be an easy solution to many licencing issues. 😉
No but when it combines a lot of source code and some of it is GPL, then the output
is affected. That’s when the stickyness of the GPL license applies and the combined
software - including modules - all run under the GPL license regardless of what license
the source code as text had.
The copyright remains exactly the same though.
Its like e.g., a translation of a book. You can not claim that you own the copyright of a
book by simple translating it.
I do understand that. I do not understand why your adding that example in this
discussion though. You’re mixing copyright and the license to use the copyrighted work.
/O
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 11:11
To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>
Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
<sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: Re: [sr-dev] Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 30 Mar 2023, at 11:00, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello Olle,
IMHO the Debian way is correct. This is also the way companies are doing it, some
examples:
https://www.mbvans.com/en/legal-notices/foss-disclosure
https://oss.bosch-cm.com/gm.html (click at one of the links for the
licence terms for a huge PDF)
I would say for a -sources package this is correct, but I don’t really agree that
it’s correct for the binary package.
The only way to "fix" this would be to rewrite the respective parts of the code
and then put it under another licence, or ask the original author(s) for permission to
re-licence.
You cannot distribute Kamailio under BSD licence, as many of its parts are GPLv2 or
later, as clearly indicated in the first section of the copyright file.
I know, but reading the output can confuse people that we have a multi-license
distribution of Kamailio, which we clearly have not.
/O
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 10:45
To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
<sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: [sr-dev] Re: Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 29 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Hi!
On 28/3/23 16:36, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Ok, so that’s where it came from. The thing is that as you create a package of
Kamailiio, in my view it’s distributed under GPL v2, regardless of the license of the
source file.
Should we really list all those license in the package as it seems strange for a software
package to have multiple licenses. It’s not that users can select which license they use
Kamailio under.
I think this is more confusing and as these kind of tools become more
used, the confusion will be even bigger. Suddenly we have someone
distributing Kamailio under BSD license since they belived they had a
choice…
/O
Hi!
Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio installed
from Debian.
The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
- For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
- The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the
debian package names, which is incorrect I will try with a newer system, like Debian
Bullseye.
My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
the information of licenses in packaging is at debian/copyright [0]
[0]
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/pkg/kamailio/deb/de
b
i
an/copyright
18 Apr
18 Apr
12:02 p.m.
Sorry, life got in the way, but I’m coming back to this discussion…
I think we should
* List all licenses per file in the sources package (as is done now)
* Only use GPL v2 in the compiled (binary) packages
The copyright is the same in both, but the license is in fact different.
In general, no part of a compiled Kamailio can be distributed under BSD. There may be one
of the internal libraries that could be unaffected by the GPL,
but anyway, when the customer links in in memory to Kamailio it’s still GPL.
/O
On 30 Mar 2023, at 16:39, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hi Olle,
sure. What some people are doing is to list the common licence (e.g., GPLv2 or later)
prominently like in the help output etc.., and then provide a pointer to a file that
includes all the details, like the Debian copyright file discussed earlier. This is the
description about that information, its machine readable (I was not aware of that):
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 13:19
To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>
Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: Re: [sr-dev] Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 30 Mar 2023, at 12:51, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hi Olle,
a compiler does not magically change the licence just by processing the source code and
producing binary code.
That would be an easy solution to many licencing issues. 😉
No but when it combines
a lot of source code and some of it is GPL, then the output is affected. That’s when the
stickyness of the GPL license applies and the combined software - including modules - all
run under the GPL license regardless of what license the source code as text had.
The copyright remains exactly the same though.
Its like e.g., a translation of a book. You can not claim that you own the copyright of a
book by simple translating it.
I do understand that. I do not understand why your
adding that example in this discussion though. You’re mixing copyright and the license to
use the copyrighted work.
/O
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 11:11
To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>
Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
<sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: Re: [sr-dev] Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 30 Mar 2023, at 11:00, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello Olle,
IMHO the Debian way is correct. This is also the way companies are doing it, some
examples:
https://www.mbvans.com/en/legal-notices/foss-disclosure
https://oss.bosch-cm.com/gm.html (click at one of the links for the
licence terms for a huge PDF)
I would say for a -sources package this is correct,
but I don’t really agree that it’s correct for the binary package.
The only way to "fix" this would be to rewrite the respective parts of the code
and then put it under another licence, or ask the original author(s) for permission to
re-licence.
You cannot distribute Kamailio under BSD licence, as many of its parts are GPLv2 or
later, as clearly indicated in the first section of the copyright file.
I know,
but reading the output can confuse people that we have a multi-license distribution of
Kamailio, which we clearly have not.
/O
Cheers,
Henning
-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 10:45
To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
<sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: [sr-dev] Re: Debian SBOM for kamailio
On 29 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
Hi!
On 28/3/23 16:36, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> Hi!
> Using the “syft” tool from Anchore I created an SBOM for a server with Kamailio
installed from Debian.
> The result is quite interesting. Some notes:
> - For each component (debian package) a list of licenses are made.
> - The CPEs - filters for matching with NVD - are based on the
> debian package names, which is incorrect I will try with a newer system, like Debian
Bullseye.
> My question is if we can fix this somehow by modifying meta data in our packages.
the information of licenses in packaging is at debian/copyright [0]
[0]
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/pkg/kamailio/deb/de
b
i
an/copyright
Ok, so that’s where it came from. The thing is that as you create a package of
Kamailiio, in my view it’s distributed under GPL v2, regardless of the license of the
source file.
Should we really list all those license in the package as it seems strange for a software
package to have multiple licenses. It’s not that users can select which license they use
Kamailio under.
I think this is more confusing and as these kind of tools become more
used, the confusion will be even bigger. Suddenly we have someone
distributing Kamailio under BSD license since they belived they had a
choice…
/O
20 Apr
20 Apr
1:57 p.m.
Hi,
On 18/4/23 11:02, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Sorry, life got in the way, but I’m coming back to
this discussion…
I think we should
* List all licenses per file in the sources package (as is done now)
* Only use GPL v2 in the compiled (binary) packages
The copyright is the same in both, but the license is in fact different.
Uh, what do you mean? How the license of compiled package is different from the ones in
the source?
In general, no part of a compiled Kamailio can be
distributed under BSD. There may be one of the internal libraries that could be unaffected
by the GPL,
but anyway, when the customer links in in memory to Kamailio it’s still GPL.
Now I'm really confused :-(
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Victor Seva |
| : :' : linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org |
| `. `' PGP Key ID: 0x51A09B18CF5A5068 |
| `- Debian Developer |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2:20 p.m.
On 20 Apr 2023, at 12:57, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 18/4/23 11:02, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
The wonders of GPL. It’s sticky. Even if you have other licenses (provided they are
compatible) in the source code then the product itself is all GPL.
So if I create a product and license it under GPLv2, and one of the source files is BSD,
the compiled binary will be only GPLv2.
No part of the compiled product is BSD any more. GPL kind of sticks to it all.
BUT if you only look at the source code, and not the binary. I can create a product,
license it under BSD and take one of the source
files from kamailio and include it.
* If that file is licensed under BSD, my product can be BSD when compiled and used.
* If that file is licensed under GPLv2, my product will be GPLv2 when used. Regardless of
the license of my source code.
So the source package can have a list of licenses, but in my view the binary package can
not.
The stickyness include loading of .so modules - dynamic linking.
This is why we can’t use GPLv2 licensed code when creating commercial products. Other
licenses work fine. LGPL is another story.
I’m not a lawyer, but have spent many years in these kind of discussions. Happy if wrong.
:-)
/O
Sorry, life got in the way, but I’m coming back
to this discussion…
I think we should
* List all licenses per file in the sources package (as is done now)
* Only use GPL v2 in the compiled (binary) packages
The copyright is the same in both, but the license is in fact different.
Uh, what do you mean? How the license of compiled package is different from the ones in
the source?
In general, no part of a compiled Kamailio can be
distributed under BSD. There may be one of the internal libraries that could be unaffected
by the GPL,
but anyway, when the customer links in in memory to Kamailio it’s still GPL.
Now I'm really confused :-(
3:07 p.m.
On 20/4/23 13:20, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Ah, OK. Yes, indeed but there's no explicit license on the binary deb, AFAIK.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Victor Seva |
| : :' : linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org |
| `. `' PGP Key ID: 0x51A09B18CF5A5068 |
| `- Debian Developer |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 20 Apr
2023, at 12:57, Victor Seva <linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
On 18/4/23 11:02, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
The wonders of GPL. It’s sticky. Even if you have other licenses (provided they are
compatible) in the source code then the product itself is all GPL.
So if I create a product and license it under GPLv2, and one of the source files is BSD,
the compiled binary will be only GPLv2.
No part of the compiled product is BSD any more. GPL kind of sticks to it all.
BUT if you only look at the source code, and not the binary. I can create a product,
license it under BSD and take one of the source
files from kamailio and include it.
* If that file is licensed under BSD, my product can be BSD when compiled and used.
* If that file is licensed under GPLv2, my product will be GPLv2 when used. Regardless of
the license of my source code.
So the source package can have a list of licenses, but in my view the binary package can
not.
The stickyness include loading of .so modules - dynamic linking.
This is why we can’t use GPLv2 licensed code when creating commercial products. Other
licenses work fine. LGPL is another story.
I’m not a lawyer, but have spent many years in these kind of discussions. Happy if wrong.
:-)
Sorry, life got in the way, but I’m coming back
to this discussion…
I think we should
* List all licenses per file in the sources package (as is done now)
* Only use GPL v2 in the compiled (binary) packages
The copyright is the same in both, but the license is in fact different.
Uh, what do you mean? How the license of compiled package is different from the ones in
the source?
In general, no part of a compiled Kamailio can be
distributed under BSD. There may be one of the internal libraries that could be unaffected
by the GPL,
but anyway, when the customer links in in memory to Kamailio it’s still GPL.
Now I'm really confused :-(
3:33 p.m.
On 20 Apr 2023, at 14:07, Victor Seva
<linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 20/4/23 13:20, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Ah, OK. Yes, indeed but there's no explicit license on the binary deb, AFAIK.
If you go back in this thread, you’ll see that my SBOM tools found a long list of licenses
in the debian package, which is
why I started this discussion… They are using Debian packaging to find out about the
licenses and thus provide bad information.
/O
On 20 Apr
2023, at 12:57, Victor Seva <linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org> wrote:
On 18/4/23 11:02, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
The wonders of GPL. It’s sticky. Even if you have
other licenses (provided they are compatible) in the source code then the product itself
is all GPL.
So if I create a product and license it under GPLv2, and one of the source files is BSD,
the compiled binary will be only GPLv2.
No part of the compiled product is BSD any more. GPL kind of sticks to it all.
BUT if you only look at the source code, and not the binary. I can create a product,
license it under BSD and take one of the source
files from kamailio and include it.
* If that file is licensed under BSD, my product can be BSD when compiled and used.
* If that file is licensed under GPLv2, my product will be GPLv2 when used. Regardless of
the license of my source code.
So the source package can have a list of licenses, but in my view the binary package can
not.
The stickyness include loading of .so modules - dynamic linking.
This is why we can’t use GPLv2 licensed code when creating commercial products. Other
licenses work fine. LGPL is another story.
I’m not a lawyer, but have spent many years in these kind of discussions. Happy if wrong.
:-) Sorry, life got in the way, but I’m coming back
to this discussion…
I think we should
* List all licenses per file in the sources package (as is done now)
* Only use GPL v2 in the compiled (binary) packages
The copyright is the same in both, but the license is in fact different.
Uh, what do you mean? How the license of compiled package is different from the ones in
the source?
In general, no part of a compiled Kamailio can be
distributed under BSD. There may be one of the internal libraries that could be unaffected
by the GPL,
but anyway, when the customer links in in memory to Kamailio it’s still GPL.
Now I'm really confused :-(
585
days inactive
608
days old
12 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Henning Westerholt -
Olle E. Johansson -
Victor Seva