On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:04:35 +0100 W. Martin Borgert wrote: > (out of curiosity moved to debian-legal) (I guess you intended to ask to keep the other recipients in Cc: if so, you should ask explicitly) > > On 2011-03-05 23:46, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > > gnetworktester seems to parse the output of nmap and nmap upstream at > > http://insecure.org/nmap/data/COPYING gives me the impression that > > gnetworktester would thus be "derivative work". > > IANAL, but since when parsing the output of another program > constitutes a derivative work? IANAL either, but I don't think that parsing the output of a program creates a derivative-base relationship... > Indeed, the forementioned file > says, a program would be a derivate in the authors > interpretation of the GPL, if it > > """ > 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.) [...] > """ > > What do the legal experts think about this, especially the > parsing aspect? It looks awkward, at least to me. Even the FSF's interpretation (which stretches the definition of derivative work quite a bit, in the attempt to defend the copyleft mechanism of the GNU GPL) seems to assert that there's no derivation going on, when the two programs "communicate at arms length" [1]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem I would say that two programs communicate "at arms length", when one executes the other and parses its output... Let's anyway wait for the opinion of other debian-legal regulars. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpZf3jSHo4fg.pgp
Description: PGP signature