Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

License? #146

Closed
pombredanne opened this issue Jan 15, 2020 · 5 comments
Closed

License? #146

pombredanne opened this issue Jan 15, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@pombredanne
Copy link

pombredanne commented Jan 15, 2020

Hi, following some chat with @msrb on nexB/vulnerablecode#63 (comment) I would like to reuse this codebase as part of vulnerablecode which is similar in spirit to the cvedb but eventually larger in scope. See also https://nlnet.nl/project/vulnerabilitydatabase/

The only license I could find if for the cve2pkg in https://github.com/fabric8-analytics/cvejob/blob/4e5abc99a506070d6e7b191a9783e5b6f14ea5f7/tools/src/cpe2pkg/LICENSE

So what would be the license for the rest of the code?
The best right answer would be Apache or some permissive or LGPL license so we can integrate it more easily in the Apache-license code of the vulnerablecode project ... BUT any FOSS license will do!
Thanks!

(BTW the same license question applies to the curated results at https://github.com/fabric8-analytics/cvedb and public domain would be the best right answer since this is the license we use for vulnerablecode data ... and a larger question to possibly collaborate together in general)

@pombredanne
Copy link
Author

@dvandra @tisnik @CermakM ping. Would you know who I should contact to resolve the licensing for this repo and its companion cvedb?
Thank you!
Cordially
Philippe

@dvandra dvandra self-assigned this Jan 23, 2020
@CermakM CermakM mentioned this issue Jan 26, 2020
@CermakM
Copy link
Contributor

CermakM commented Jan 26, 2020

Hello @pombredanne ... thank you for letting us now. It's really weird that this repo didn't have any license associated with it. I suppose Apache 2.0 would fit into the picture well, please @msrb and @tisnik correct me if I am wrong.

Cheers,
M

@pombredanne
Copy link
Author

@CermakM Thank you for the reply. Apache 2.0 would be fine (as would be any permissive or LGPL or GPL with linking exception)
Are any of you going to FOSDEM by chance?

@msrb
Copy link
Member

msrb commented Feb 4, 2020

I merged the pull request from Marek. The license is now officially ASL 2.0. There was never any question whether this should be under permissive license or not. Not having that ASL 2.0 license file in this repository was just an oversight on my part.

@pombredanne thanks for bringing this to my attention 😉
@CermakM thanks for the pull request
@tisnik thanks for the review

:)

@msrb msrb closed this as completed Feb 4, 2020
@pombredanne
Copy link
Author

Thank you for following up on this!
🙇‍♂️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants