Re: nmap licensing claims
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:05:43PM +0200, Birzan George Cristian wrote: > Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim > made by nmap developers [1]: > > in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's > rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, > including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and > UNIXWare." First, note that they are terminating one licensee's license, that being SCO's (the SCO Group's). > My understanding of that is that you're only allowed to use this program > as long as you comply with the GPL, which does not limit its > distribution or usage on certain platforms. Any such addendum would be a > new licence. A copyright holder always has the right to revoke a license for noncompliance with the license's stated terms. Debian cannot do anything about that. > By browsing the GPL FAQ, I came across two sections, which, in short, > state that if you change the GPL, you must not use the name GPL [3] and > that you are not allowed to distribute a program under a different > licence than GPL, but have all modifications be GPL [4]. > > I am not sure if adding that claim means you've changed the GPL. If it > doesn't, then what I've said above is irrelevant and should be ignored. > :-) The NMAP developers are asserting that SCO has violated their (NMAP's) application of the GNU GPL to the NMAP software. -- G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and Debian GNU/Linux |improper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nmap licensing claims
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Birzan George Cristian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040305 20:55]: > > First of all, I would like to ask you to Cc: me to replies, as I am not > > subscribed to the list. Thanks in advance! > > > > Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim > > made by nmap developers [1]: > > > > in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's > > rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, > > including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and > > UNIXWare." > > > > IANAL, but I see two issues with this. > > Well, don't worry about that statement. It's either a policial > statement (also known as FUD) Only *false* statements can be FUD. This one is both political and true. (Doesn't affect the license though, it's just a reflection on how copyright works) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nmap licensing claims
* Birzan George Cristian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040305 20:55]: > First of all, I would like to ask you to Cc: me to replies, as I am not > subscribed to the list. Thanks in advance! > > Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim > made by nmap developers [1]: > > in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's > rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, > including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and > UNIXWare." > > IANAL, but I see two issues with this. Well, don't worry about that statement. It's either a policial statement (also known as FUD), or it's just telling what the GPL Section 4 says itselfs. So, in neither case, it changes anything of the GPL. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: nmap licensing claims
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:05:43PM +0200, Birzan George Cristian wrote: > Now, the reason I'm posting here is I've noticed the following claim > made by nmap developers [1]: > in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's > rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, > including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and > UNIXWare." > IANAL, but I see two issues with this. > First, nmap is distributed under the GPL. Section 4 of the GPL sates [2]: > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program > except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise > to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will > automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties > who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will > not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in > full compliance. > My understanding of that is that you're only allowed to use this program > as long as you comply with the GPL, which does not limit its > distribution or usage on certain platforms. Any such addendum would be a > new licence. 1) Your comment above is misleadingly imprecise. The GPL is not an end-user license; you do not need to accept it at all in order to *use* GPL software. 2) The above statement does not limit the distribution or usage of nmap on any particular platforms. It only limits its distribution *by certain parties* who they claim have violated the license. Anyone else still has permission to distribute nmap binaries compiled for SCO systems under the terms of the GPL, and anyone can use nmap on SCO systems, it's only SCO themselves who are prohibited from distributing. The nmap license still offers the same terms to everyone, they've just included a notice in the distribution that a particular party has failed to comply with those terms. Therefore, this is not an act of discrimination, as other parties who fail to comply with the terms of the GPL are also not allowed to distribute nmap, whether or not the nmap authors make a point of publically shaming those parties. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nmap licensing claims
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:11:40PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > In Fyodor's opinion, SCO violated some (yet unknown?) terms of the GPL Yet unknown? Isn't this the same thing SCO is doing, spreading FUD about how Linux violated their IP? > license in his works (nmap). He is telling them their license is > therefore void. As to especulate where SCO violated Fyodor's rights, > it's possible that the language at the second half of section 5 explains it: > "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based > on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, > and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying > the Program or works based on it." > But, as SCO stated in *official court documents*, they do not accept the > GPL as a valid license; therefore, they cannot distribute nmap. > One: nmap's license is GPL. the "mention" you talked about is just a > warning to SCO that, having violated the GPL, their license is > terminated, in accordance Hm. Fair enough, I guess. -- Birzan George Violence is the last refuge of Cristian the incompetent -- Salvor Hardin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nmap licensing claims
Birzan George Cristian wrote: Now, my questions for you are: 1) Is nmap's licence GPL, or by adding that mention, they created a new licence? One: nmap's license is GPL. the "mention" you talked about is just a warning to SCO that, having violated the GPL, their license is terminated, in accordance 2) Is nmap DFSG compliant, and can be distributed in Debian? Two: see One above. 3) Was I on crack when reading the above? Three: it seems so. :-) In Fyodor's opinion, SCO violated some (yet unknown?) terms of the GPL license in his works (nmap). He is telling them their license is therefore void. As to especulate where SCO violated Fyodor's rights, it's possible that the language at the second half of section 5 explains it: "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it." But, as SCO stated in *official court documents*, they do not accept the GPL as a valid license; therefore, they cannot distribute nmap.
