Re: nmap license
Sorry for the late response; I'll avoid re-hashing points. Assume for a
moment that this 'clarification' is sensical and valid:
* o Integrates source code from
Nmap *
I think we'd generally consider that restriction free, and it would be
in line with how we normally interpret the GPL.
* o Reads or includes Nmap copyrighted data files, such
as *
* nmap-os-fingerprints or
nmap-service-probes. *
"Includes" would be the same as above.
"Reads" is, IMO, not OK, as that would not normally be considered a
derived work, and thus this restriction would contaminate other
software.
As a side note, under Feist, it's questionable if a fingerprint file is
copyrightable (in the US, again).
* o Executes
Nmap *
I don't believe this would normally be a derived work, either,
especially in the US considering Lotus v. Borland.
* o Integrates/includes/aggregates Nmap into an executable
installer *
"integrates" is probably a derivative work normally, but aggregates may
not be (and is explicitly excluded by the GPL...).
So, can we not put nmap on a d-i disc?
* o Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the
above *
The executes is again questionable.
*
*
* The term "Nmap" should be taken to also include any portions or
derived *
* works of Nmap. This list is not exclusive, but is just meant
to *
* clarify our interpretation of derived works with some common
examples. *
This sentence ("just meant to clarify our interpretation") is confusing
me. I'm not sure how it should be read (or how a court would read it).
I suspect a court may attempt to use these clarifications, and treat it
as part of the license grant.... After all, it is clearly the intention
of the granting party.
* These restrictions only apply when you actually redistribute Nmap.
For *
* example, nothing stops you from writing and selling a
proprietary *
* front-end to Nmap. Just distribute it by itself, and point people
to *
* http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ to download
Nmap.
Most interesting, because if these were truly derivative works of nmap
the GPL would not allow this.
Reply to: