Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
guy keren
choo at actcom.co.il
Fri Nov 20 01:21:29 IST 2009
Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Friday 20 Nov 2009 00:18:03 Boris shtrasman wrote:
>> Well my question arises after reading nmap copy file: (
>> http://nmap.org/svn/COPYING)
>>
>> * o Integrates source code from Nmap
>> * * o Reads or includes Nmap copyrighted data files, such as
>> * * nmap-os-db or nmap-service-probes.
>> * * o Executes Nmap and parses the results (as opposed to typical shell
>> or * * execution-menu apps, which simply display raw Nmap output and so
>> are * * not derivative works.)
>> * * o Integrates/includes/aggregates Nmap into a proprietary
>> executable * * installer, such as those produced by InstallShield.
>> * * o Links to a library or executes a program that does
>> any of the above * *
>> *
>
> Wow! That seems like a gross mis-interpretation of what a derivative work
> means, and I don't think the FSF supports it to this exterme extent. A
> software which poses such restrictions may possibly not be free. The nmap
> originators cannot make claim for programs that executes nmap and parses its
> results (as long as the parsing code is 100% original), because this is not
> linking and so is not considered derivative works according to the traditional
> FSF interpretation.
>
> Of course, once nmap has made its software GPLed, there's little they can do
> to stop the devil from escaping. They can give their own absurd interpretation
> of the GPL or what "derivative works" mean, but I believe the law is on the
> side of my interpretation.
the thing is - they write that their software is distributed under the
terms of the GPL _with a list of exceptions and clarifications_ - which
means they are using a modified version of the GPL. in this case, the
interpretation of the FSF has nothing to do with nmap's license.
and of-course, nmaps license has no bearing on the interpretation of a
non-modified GPL license.
--guy
More information about the Linux-il
mailing list