Kami thanks for your email. nprobe is dual license: GPL and commercial. Depending where you fall a license will apply to you.
Regards Luca On 11/27/2014 08:44 AM, grarpamp wrote: >>> 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 _______________________________________________ Ntop-misc mailing list [email protected] http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
