Reading https://github.com/stackforge/vmtp#license, the sentence "you must accept the license of each tool before using VMTP." is not correct. One of the main tenets of open source software and licenses is that usage of the software is not restricted (sometimes this is referred to as 'freedom 0' (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Contrary to the proprietary world, where users are forced to click-accept EULAs, in the free and open source software world licenses don't need to be accepted before the software can be used.
The line would be more correct if it read something like:
VMTP includes benchmark tools iperf (https://iperf.fr/license.html) and nuttcp (http://nuttcp.net/nuttcp/beta/LICENSE) in the tools/ directory for convenience.
The readme can be certainly enhanced to be less contentious.
Usage is certainly not restricted especially when it comes to binaries that are not linked to any other code. However users are still bound to all the licensing terms of the packaged software. For example in the case of iperf, the license says clearly:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- Neither the names of the University of Illinois, NCSA, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without specific prior written permission.
If someone wants to use VMTP and does not agree with any of the terms of Apache 2.0 (VMTP) and iperf license, then that person should not use VMTP.
If we have to change the language to what you suggest, that could give the wrong impression that one could copy VMTP code (including the iperf binary) and do without any of the iperf licensing terms. In short providing just a link to the iperf license vs. saying that one must abide to the licenses of iperf is not exactly the same.
Note that many other open source software that package or install other open source tools do specify that the user should/must accept the licenses of dependent packages. Or else if you do not agree you should not use it.
For example the Google PerfkitBenhmarker (https:/
Net-net is this is mostly lawyer verbiage, in practice there is no reason why anybody would not want to accept the terms of iperf and nuttcp licenses ;-)