> On 30 Mar 2023, at 12:51, Henning Westerholt <h...@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 <o...@edvina.net> 
> Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 11:11
> To: Henning Westerholt <h...@gilawa.com>
> Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org>
> Subject: Re: [sr-dev] Debian SBOM for kamailio
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30 Mar 2023, at 11:00, Henning Westerholt <h...@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 <o...@edvina.net>
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 30. März 2023 10:45
>> To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List 
>> <sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org>
>> Subject: [sr-dev] Re: Debian SBOM for kamailio
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 29 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Victor Seva <linuxman...@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/deb
>>> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-dev-le...@lists.kamailio.org

Reply via email to