Jose Antonio Quevedo wrote:
[snip] The license can be founded here: http://www.ossec.net/main/license/ What can you tell me about it?
I find the the fact that they belive including the program in a propritary installer executable creates a derivitive work worrysome. Normally that is considered mere aggregation, and only rquires that they make the source available. Then there is the worry that they feel that any program that executes their code is a derivative work. I've seen plenty of propritary programs that include GPL'd programs in the background interacting with them soley through the limited interfaces the program provides on the command line. AFAIK the FSF has always considered that acceptable. This allows things like proprietary GUIs to be built around GPL'd programs. An execlent example would be a propritary IDE built around GDB, GCC, and GNU Make. That would be considered acceptable, and standard procedure would be to include the GPL''d programs in the same installer executable.
Further the if-it-executes-this-code-it-is-a-derived-work interpretationimpacts not just propritary software, but free software that wished to utilize the program. It is especially troublesome since it prevents a gui wrapper that is free, but has a GPL incompatible license from being permitted.
Now this is all assuming that a court is willing to accept Ossec's interpretation, and not use the more traditional interpretation, but since it is usually better to fall on the side of caution, this is a good assumption to make.