Freddie Cash wrote:
On December 15, 2004 08:57 am, Rainer Zocholl wrote:OT license rant.
In the really meanwhile long long linear list of mail scanners
I only see the (non GPLed) "DansGuardian Anti-Virus Patch".
Do you mean that?
AFAIK is DansGuardian payware except for private use.
Please do at least the bare minimum research before posting things like the above. Opening even the first page of the DansGuardian website will show that it is available free (as in no money), for anyone to use (at home, at work, at school, whereever).
(Disclaimer: This is first time in quite a while that I have looked at his terms. I have not followed any other discussions concerning this. In my opinion, the stated terms are the only things that should matter to people wishing to decide whether the legalities of the software suits them.)
I did. I went to the page and I saw
G-Parent was completey correct. Just swap "private" out for non-commercial.
DG is licensed under the GPL for everyone who downloads it for non-commercial purposes. (defined there).
If you download it for commerical purposes then you theoretically have conditions attached as to your ability to download the software. (logically the author intends for you to have restrictions on redistributing your source under GPL unencumbered as well)
Since the author pretty much obviously does not intend to relinquish his stated conditions upon application of the GPL licensing (otherwise it would be trivial to fork off an unencumbered version) nobody in their right mind would think this satisfies either the Open Source Definition or the DFSG. I hardly imagine the FSF would call this FS either.
(not to say reading the web site content clearly says that, its ambiguous, however we can make a reasonably logical deduction as to what he MEANS)
No matter the blurb about RMS on the page. I dont believe it for a second and neither would anyone familiar with RMS literature and attitude. Dual licensing and timed relicensing are about at the edge of the cliff when it comes to his approval.
Now what does this mean? Can you download it for non commerical purposes and redistribute it freely (which seems to cover non-commerical to me) to any other party under the GPL? I dont think thats what Dan intended. So being as he holds the copyright and can legally license it as he wishes, it appears he has licensed it to people under contradictory terms. There is no way to exercise the rights granted by the GPL in their entirety without violating his stated attached conditions. IOW an indian gift.
The attached GPL license is basically eviscerated by the stated non-commerical conditions. Which is completely within his right to do.
Not to say that Dan hasnt made a wonderfull contribution to all those who have benefited from his work. But this is about as open source as MS shared source.
Joe _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
