On 8/13/22, piorunz wrote: > On 13/08/2022 18:30, Lee wrote: >> I just noticed that the netperf package is in the [non-free] repository >> https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/netperf >> which seems wrong. >> >> Is the MIT license really not compatible with open source or is the >> netperf package using outdated licensing info or .. what? > > Very interesting. I don't know about this specific package, but MIT in > general is allowed in DSFG.
thanks for confirming MIT is allowed as open source > For example, this package is full MIT and its in Debian: > https://packages.debian.org/sid/kraptor > > netperf license, as seen on > https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/n/netperf/netperf_2.7.0-0.1_copyright, > still reads: > > Copyright (C) 1993 Hewlett-Packard Company > ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. > > It must have been recently this package changed from Copyright (C) 1993 > Hewlett-Packard Company to MIT license, and Debian didn't catched up to > this fact yet? > > Also their github README states: > "This version of netperf has been opensourced by Hewlett Packard > Enterprise using the MIT license." > And also > "Licenses updated." > > Maybe older versions indeed were not under MIT. > > EDIT: Ok I think I found it. > https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf/commit/2d88bcc75d97f462eafe8605f8da0c1f875b7dad > > It seems that this package license has changed from full HP copyright to > MIT, on 20 January 2021. > > Perhaps package needs updating in Debian repository :) Wow!! Good detective work; that would explain why it's in non-free. Thanks Lee
