NTP License Check (Was: Re: NTP vs RADclock?)

On 2012-06-07, Dave Hart <hart@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:05 AM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be
added to the BlackLists wrote:
Parts of ntp (ntpd) source code reference GPL, LGPS,
 among other things e.g. <http://ntp.org/license>,

I am aware of no part of the ntpd tarballs that is solely licensed
under GPL. libopts is dual-licensed BSD or GPL at user's choice. The
rest of the package is BSD-style, as seen on the pages above. If you
are aware of any GPL-only code we're distributing, please speak up so
that we can correct the mistake.

List of files containing a GPL License:

steve@stasis:/usr/local/src/ntp/ntp-dev-4.2.7p278$ licensecheck \
--recursive . | grep GPL
../ntpd/ntp_parser.c: GPL (v3 or later)
../ntpd/ntp_parser.h: GPL (v3 or later)
../sntp/libopts/autoopts/usage-txt.h: LGPL (v3 or later) GENERATED FILE
../sntp/libopts/autoopts/options.h: LGPL (v3 or later) GENERATED FILE
../sntp/libopts/genshell.c: GPL (v3 or later) GENERATED FILE
../sntp/libopts/parse-duration.h: GPL (v3 or later)
../sntp/libopts/ag-char-map.h: GPL (v3 or later)
../sntp/libopts/parse-duration.c: GPL (v3 or later)
../sntp/libopts/genshell.h: GPL (v3 or later) GENERATED FILE
../sntp/libopts/compat/compat.h: GPL (v3 or later)
../sntp/libopts/compat/windows-config.h: GPL (v3 or later)
../sntp/libevent/build-aux/ltmain.sh: GPL (v2 or later)

License Type Inventory:

steve@stasis:/usr/local/src/ntp/ntp-dev-4.2.7p278$ licensecheck \
--recursive . | cut -d ':' -f 2 | sort -u
BSD (2 clause)
BSD (2 clause) ISC
BSD (3 clause)
BSD (4 clause)
BSD (4 clause) ISC
GPL (v2 or later)
GPL (v3 or later)
GPL (v3 or later) GENERATED FILE
*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
*No copyright* Public domain
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
Public domain

Steve Kostecke <kostecke@xxxxxxx>
NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/

Relevant Pages

  • Mixing with copyleft (GPL) code
    ... other code that is also 2-clause BSD, public domain, etc. ... Foomaticizer, as a whole, must be licensed under GPL, because Qt is GPL. ... The code, being my own and therefore free to license as I wish, is BSD, ...
  • Re: FreeBSD copyrighted?
    ... >>everything were licensed under the GPL. ... That's true and I also usually prefer the BSD license. ... include gcc. ...
  • Re: [PATCH 1/3] msm: Add gpio register address mapping information.
    ... This is a standard BSD-style license so it's compatible w/ the GPL. ... The kernel requires GPL, and its much much easier for everyone to state ... If you want to make it clear it's also available BSD licensed in this ...
  • Re: Building an assembler from scratch
    ... meant it was a derivative work of the copyrighted work, ... In the FOSS case (and this varies a bit, we'll talk GPL here), anyone ... but are required to license anyone else to use their ... this is personally why I am currently in favor of MIT or BSD licensing. ...
  • Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]
    ... Subject: GPL ... becomes a "derivative work" and therefore everything that depends on gcc is ... It is pretty clear to the discerning thinker that the BSD style license is superior in every way. ... Arguments about making BSD licensed software proprietary, are balanced by the idea that BSD software remains free, in spite of what some may do with it, and better it imposes no restrictions upon the rights of others. ...