ngrep 1.38 license
I'm the maintainer of ngrep, which has recently changed licenses. When I first
approached Jordan Ritter (the author) about packaging ngrep, I noticed that
the package didn't include a license:
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jordan Ritter <email@example.com>
To: Nathan Sandver <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: ngrep
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Nathan Sandver wrote:
# I'm interested in packaging ngrep for use with Debian. I noticed that
# the regex.c and install-sh both have their own licenses, but I didn't
# see a license on the rest of the code (please forgive me if I
# overlooked it somewhere :). Have you licensed your own work? A license
# permitting redistribution and modification is required for Debian to
# include ngrep. If it's alright for me to package ngrep, can you let me
# know when you decide on a license?
I've been approached by someone from Debian before (though I don't
recall whom), and that person asked me the same question. My response was
"opensource", but obviously that doesn't fully answer the question. My
personal preference at this point is to BSD license the software, but the
regex library I used is GPL'd, so AFAIK that requires (or strongly
encourages) me to make the entire thing GPL.
I think one or two revs down the line I am going to use the Perl regex
library instead, which is under the must less restrictive Artistic
License. But, to answer your question, the license is going to be GPL for
the time being. The next revision (1.36) will reflect this.
Thanks for your time,
As you can see, he licensed the software under the GPL. Now, however, with the
release of ngrep 1.38, he has changed the license again. This time, he's
written the license himself. Here's the full text of it:
Copyright (c) 2000 Jordan Ritter. All rights reserved.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose on
any computer system, and to alter it and redistribute it, subject
to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by
explicit claim or by omission. Since few users ever read sources,
credits must also appear in the documentation.
2. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software. Since few users
ever read sources, credits must also appear in the documentation.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software must display the following acknowledgement: This product
includes software developed by Jordan Ritter.
4. The name of the Author may not be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
5. This notice, and any references to this notice in the source,
documentation, or binary, may not be removed or altered.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS
BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE
OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN
IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
My question is, does this new license still qualify as DFSG free? Please keep
me CC'ed in your replies, as I'm not subscribed to this list.
Thanks for your time,
Nathan E. Sandver, KC7SQK
email@example.com || firstname.lastname@example.org
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.