>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Kami Maldonado
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am in charge of deploying nprobe (with automation implied) at my workplace
>> and we have acquired the license already, but I am afraid that as soon as I
>> generate the license file, I won’t be able to use it if we dispose the
>> vmware instance where it gets installed
>>
>> My question is: After I create the license nProbe, will I be able to use it
>> again if I need to re-reploy in a different environment (.e.g. Disaster
>> Recovery) to replace the old nprobe box?
> yes we will allow you to move the license
> Luca
Please keep in mind that the nProbe software bundle, (eg: the source
that comes in the nprobe-<ver>-<date>-<rev>.tgz file or the like),
is in fact to seem OpenSource software licensed under the GPL license
('v2' if you believe the LICENSE file, or 'v3' if you believe the
presumably autotools errantly included COPYING file, or 'v2 or any
later version' if you believe the nprobe.c). Therefore you are free
to copy, share, and modify it as you wish subject only to the GPL.
You do not 'acquire' the license, you are given it (GPL) for free.
Note also that the software is either GPL or it is not (particularly
the activities which are within the scope of GPL, specifically
'copying, distribution and modification')... period, finale. Also,
the 'meaning' of the GPL is carried out in the words of the GPL
text itself and in the law as acting about/upon the text. Therefore
any muddy 'clarifications' and 'interpretations' about the GPL by
the GPL licensor/author are void and not ones they can make about
GPL so long as the GPL banner is present. eg: It is either GPL
verbatim or it is not, IMO.
In my small opinion Luca is maybe wrong to make the potentially
competing extra words about/around GPL itself while claiming to in
fact be GPL, and could maybe even be in conflict with the FSF/GPL
about that.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/
Please also remember that every opensource project could use some
pizza's donated to support hack sessions, so there is a fee if you
get the official parent source from him :) (Note however that even
pizza/support reason words are also an issue since only the 'physical
act of transferring a copy' is fee-able under the GPL.)
And who knows what the included 'NTOP' EULA.txt refers to other
than maybe some binary device ntop sells, so it should not be in
with the nprobe tarball files there to make more confusion.
While myself considering the entirety of the nprobe source tarball
to be GPL by the very presence of 'GPL', 'COPYING', headers, etc
and like to share it to peers who ask what is working the flows etc,
I'd encourage Luca consultation with FSF and working on fixing these
possible licensing issues regarding nProbe. It is good software and
deserves to be more clearer to the world :)
In good confidences to all.
_______________________________________________
Ntop-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
