Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)

[Shlomi Fish]

On Saturday 21 Nov 2009 13:12:42 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:44:51AM +0200, 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
> 
> Anyone may interprete it as they wish. 

What? How can I trust a licence that *anyone* may interpret *as they wish*? 
What if I've downloaded and used a GPLed program (plain one without 
interpretations at the top), and then the originator of the program makes some 
claim about interpreting it the way he thinks is right, and then press charges 
against me in court? And to his defence he says that this is his 
interpretation of the licence.

If I were to believe you (and I don't), then I could never trust a GPLed 
program or use it at all, because it is open to non-standard 
"interpretations".

> The FSF also has its own
> interpretation of the GNU GPL documented in the GPL FAQ. That does not
> make it part of the written license.
> 

You probably mean:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

I assume this is a list of questions that they received. In any case, while it 
conveys their interpretation, I should assume the GPL in general is not 
disputed to multiple interpretations, including ones that stand against the 
free software definition:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

> They mention one exception there - the OpenSSL one. And it is pretty
> standard.

I don't see OpenSSL anywhere there.

> 
> Note that the interpretation of the copyrights holders is important: it
> is the copyrights holders that may actually sue you if [they think that]
> you violated their license. Thus violating their point of view here
> risks you a trial. But this does not mean that they'll win it.

Right. It is ultimately their responsibility not to stick mis-interpretations 
on the program that will make it pseudo-GPL-but-not-really (i.e: fig-leaf 
FOSS). And if you care about your users and their and yours peace of mind, you 
should avoid licensing the GPL altogether, and use a permissive software 
licence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence

No restrictions, no way to violate, no worries.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Interview with Ben Collins-Sussman - http://shlom.in/sussman

Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice.