Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)

[Tzafrir Cohen]

Hi,

I'll start with the obvious disclaimer: IANALATINALA.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 02:21:51PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> 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*? 

Anybody can interpret any license as they wish. Whether or not this
interpretation is legally-binding is a different question.

What they wrote there is that according to their understanding of the
copyrights law, using the output of a program such as nmap in such a way
in another program is essentially derived work - not really different
from using it as a library. If this is true, it applies to any license
that concerns derived works.

Their interpretation may or may not be true. I have no idea if it was
ever tested in court or if there are any known violations of it.

Ah, and yes - in case mere mortals don't agree on issues regarding
copyrights, licenses and such, they bring the matter to a court of law.
The legally binding interpretation of the law is the one of a court of
law.

> 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, 

That is a strange assumption.

> including ones that stand against the free software definition:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The free software definition is what they meant. The GNU GPL is the
legal document that they wrote in hope to achive that. It may or may not
conflict with that definition in several aspects.

> 
> > They mention one exception there - the OpenSSL one. And it is pretty
> > standard.
> 
> I don't see OpenSSL anywhere there.

 * As a special exception to the GPL terms, Insecure.Com LLC grants        *
 * permission to link the code of this program with any version of the     *
 * OpenSSL library which is distributed under a license identical to that  *
 * listed in the included COPYING.OpenSSL file, and distribute linked      *
 * combinations including the two. You must obey the GNU GPL in all        *
 * respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL.  If you modify    *
 * this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file,   *
 * but you are not obligated to do so.                                     *

> 
> > 
> > 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). 

I think that their resposibility is clarified pretty well in this
document:

 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but *
 * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of          *
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.                *

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen         | tzafrir at jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |                    | a Mutt's
tzafrir at cohens.org.il |                    |  best
ICQ# 16849754         |                    | friend