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
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
