Hi Mikhael and all! In the previous discussion about the FOSS Licences Wars, Migo has protected the GPL and the LGPL claiming they were the best strong copyleft and weak copyleft (respectively) licences , and that there was no point in phrasing shorter, easier to understand and shorter ones.
However, as I discovered based on this Linux-IL discussion: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux...@cs.huji.ac.il/msg56993.html NMAP added the following clauses of interpretation to the GPL (possibly mis- interpretation) at the top here: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux...@cs.huji.ac.il/msg57004.html <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< * Note that the GPL places important restrictions on "derived works", yet * * it does not provide a detailed definition of that term. To avoid * * misunderstandings, we consider an application to constitute a * * "derivative work" for the purpose of this license if it does any of the * * following: * * 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 * * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now this is not only not according to the commonly accepted interpretation of the GPL (which allows one to execute GPLed programs from other programs, and to re-use their output without restrictions), it also violates the Free Software Definition that reads: <<<< The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). >>>> To his "defence", Fyodor (the nmap developer) said that: <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Software can be considered free software without being straight GPL. The BSD licenses are one example of this. Also, we don't claim that Nmap is plain GPLv2. And to reduce confusion even further, we're planning to change to a license like this somday: http://nmap.org/npsl/npsl-annotated.html But we've been too busy coding to get it reviewed by an open source lawyer, and I believe that step is important as I'm a programmer and I don't pretend to be an expert in copyright law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So my question is, if the GPL allows such blatant misinterpretations of it, just so projects can wear the free software fig-leaf, what good is it? I download a GPLed program, use it in proprietary contexts, and then someone say "Wait! I've interpreted it just like the nmap people", and then I'm screwed. There's also: http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2009-February/012786.html Can anyone really trust the GPL licences if they are so vague? Regards, Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ My Aphorisms - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html Bzr is slower than Subversion in combination with Sourceforge. ( By: http://dazjorz.com/ ) _______________________________________________ Discussions mailing list Discussions@hamakor.org.il http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions
