Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: Hi Boris, you *CAN* use open source software with closed source application. The exception is when you're changing the source of the open source application, which means you'll need to give back the modification. I think linking to a FOSS product (GPL'd) is a bit more problematic, but for this you can write some simple wrappers. You are wrong. Every distribution triggers the GPL. Changed source code or not does not make any difference and linking to a GPLed library usually (some exceptions apply) triggers the GPL if you are actually distributing the library. Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Coffee Drinker CTO Codefidence Ltd. Web: http://codefidence.com Cell: +972-52-8260388 Skype: gilad_codefidence Tel: +972-8-9316883 ext. 201 Fax: +972-8-9316884 Email: gi...@codefidence.com Check out our Open Source technology and training blog - http://tuxology.net That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
GPL version 1 asserts that any software as a whole combined with GPLv1 software has to be released under the terms of GPL v1. 2009/11/22 Gilad Ben-Yossef gi...@codefidence.com Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: Hi Boris, you *CAN* use open source software with closed source application. The exception is when you're changing the source of the open source application, which means you'll need to give back the modification. I think linking to a FOSS product (GPL'd) is a bit more problematic, but for this you can write some simple wrappers. You are wrong. Every distribution triggers the GPL. Changed source code or not does not make any difference and linking to a GPLed library usually (some exceptions apply) triggers the GPL if you are actually distributing the library. Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Coffee Drinker CTO Codefidence Ltd. Web: http://codefidence.com Cell: +972-52-8260388 Skype: gilad_codefidence Tel: +972-8-9316883 ext. 201 Fax: +972-8-9316884 Email: gi...@codefidence.com Check out our Open Source technology and training blog - http://tuxology.net That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
On 22/11/2009 21:30, Raz wrote: GPL version 1 asserts that any software as a whole combined with GPLv1 software has to be released under the terms of GPL v1. I have to admit I don't know GPL v1 too much 2009/11/22 Gilad Ben-Yossef gi...@codefidence.com mailto:gi...@codefidence.com Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: Hi Boris, you *CAN* use open source software with closed source application. The exception is when you're changing the source of the open source application, which means you'll need to give back the modification. I think linking to a FOSS product (GPL'd) is a bit more problematic, but for this you can write some simple wrappers. A wrapper would still be a problem as the wrapper would also have to be GPL. IANAL but I think that an exception may be if you use the GPLed library as a sort of plugin that can be fulfilled also by other libraries. For example you can implement a simple inefficient proprietary library and a wrapper that allows using the GPLed one as well and then you are easier of with your claim. One of the reasons that a lot of major libraries (at least those that interest me) us the LGPL to bypass this problem. Personally I try to stick to using LGPLed software to avoid any issues. In any case, if you distribute a (L)GPLed library you need to distribute the source to that in any case. You are wrong. Every distribution triggers the GPL. Changed source code or not does not make any difference and linking to a GPLed library usually (some exceptions apply) triggers the GPL if you are actually distributing the library. I've worked with some companies that linked/used GPLed software and also followed some of these arguments previously. Which way dynamic linking goes is a debatable issue (whether it can be considered derived work or not) and the subject of many a flame war. It's never been tested in court though (neither linking nor direct violation) so there is no precedence whether the GPL can be enforced. Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef Chief Coffee Drinker CTO Codefidence Ltd. Web:http://codefidence.com Cell: +972-52-8260388 Skype: gilad_codefidence Tel: +972-8-9316883 ext. 201 Fax: +972-8-9316884 Email:gi...@codefidence.com mailto:gi...@codefidence.com Check out our Open Source technology and training blog -http://tuxology.net That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il mailto:Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:44:51AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Friday 20 Nov 2009 00:18:03 Boris shtrasman wrote: Well my question arises after reading nmap copy file: ( http://nmap.org/svn/COPYING) * 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 * * * Wow! That seems like a gross mis-interpretation Anyone may interprete it as they wish. The FSF also has its own interpretation of the GNU GPL documented in the GPL FAQ. That does not make it part of the written license. They mention one exception there - the OpenSSL one. And it is pretty standard. Note that the interpretation of the copyrights holders is important: it is the copyrights holders that may actually sue you if [they think that] you violated their license. Thus violating their point of view here risks you a trial. But this does not mean that they'll win it. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best ICQ# 16849754 || friend ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
On Saturday 21 Nov 2009 13:12:42 Tzafrir Cohen wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:44:51AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Friday 20 Nov 2009 00:18:03 Boris shtrasman wrote: Well my question arises after reading nmap copy file: ( http://nmap.org/svn/COPYING) * 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 * * * Wow! That seems like a gross mis-interpretation Anyone may interprete it as they wish. What? How can I trust a licence that *anyone* may interpret *as they wish*? What if I've downloaded and used a GPLed program (plain one without interpretations at the top), and then the originator of the program makes some claim about interpreting it the way he thinks is right, and then press charges against me in court? And to his defence he says that this is his interpretation of the licence. If I were to believe you (and I don't), then I could never trust a GPLed program or use it at all, because it is open to non-standard interpretations. The FSF also has its own interpretation of the GNU GPL documented in the GPL FAQ. That does not make it part of the written license. You probably mean: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html I assume this is a list of questions that they received. In any case, while it conveys their interpretation, I should assume the GPL in general is not disputed to multiple interpretations, including ones that stand against the free software definition: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html They mention one exception there - the OpenSSL one. And it is pretty standard. I don't see OpenSSL anywhere there. Note that the interpretation of the copyrights holders is important: it is the copyrights holders that may actually sue you if [they think that] you violated their license. Thus violating their point of view here risks you a trial. But this does not mean that they'll win it. Right. It is ultimately their responsibility not to stick mis-interpretations on the program that will make it pseudo-GPL-but-not-really (i.e: fig-leaf FOSS). And if you care about your users and their and yours peace of mind, you should avoid licensing the GPL altogether, and use a permissive software licence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence No restrictions, no way to violate, no worries. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Interview with Ben Collins-Sussman - http://shlom.in/sussman Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
Hi, I'll start with the obvious disclaimer: IANALATINALA. On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 02:21:51PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Saturday 21 Nov 2009 13:12:42 Tzafrir Cohen wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:44:51AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: On Friday 20 Nov 2009 00:18:03 Boris shtrasman wrote: Well my question arises after reading nmap copy file: ( http://nmap.org/svn/COPYING) * 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 * * * Wow! That seems like a gross mis-interpretation Anyone may interprete it as they wish. What? How can I trust a licence that *anyone* may interpret *as they wish*? Anybody can interpret any license as they wish. Whether or not this interpretation is legally-binding is a different question. What they wrote there is that according to their understanding of the copyrights law, using the output of a program such as nmap in such a way in another program is essentially derived work - not really different from using it as a library. If this is true, it applies to any license that concerns derived works. Their interpretation may or may not be true. I have no idea if it was ever tested in court or if there are any known violations of it. Ah, and yes - in case mere mortals don't agree on issues regarding copyrights, licenses and such, they bring the matter to a court of law. The legally binding interpretation of the law is the one of a court of law. What if I've downloaded and used a GPLed program (plain one without interpretations at the top), and then the originator of the program makes some claim about interpreting it the way he thinks is right, and then press charges against me in court? And to his defence he says that this is his interpretation of the licence. If I were to believe you (and I don't), then I could never trust a GPLed program or use it at all, because it is open to non-standard interpretations. The FSF also has its own interpretation of the GNU GPL documented in the GPL FAQ. That does not make it part of the written license. You probably mean: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html I assume this is a list of questions that they received. In any case, while it conveys their interpretation, I should assume the GPL in general is not disputed to multiple interpretations, That is a strange assumption. including ones that stand against the free software definition: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The free software definition is what they meant. The GNU GPL is the legal document that they wrote in hope to achive that. It may or may not conflict with that definition in several aspects. They mention one exception there - the OpenSSL one. And it is pretty standard. I don't see OpenSSL anywhere there. * As a special exception to the GPL terms, Insecure.Com LLC grants* * permission to link the code of this program with any version of the * * OpenSSL library which is distributed under a license identical to that * * listed in the included COPYING.OpenSSL file, and distribute linked * * combinations including the two. You must obey the GNU GPL in all* * respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify* * this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, * * but you are not obligated to do so. * Note that the interpretation of the copyrights holders is important: it is the copyrights holders that may actually sue you if [they think that] you violated their license. Thus violating their point of view here risks you a trial. But this does not mean that they'll win it. Right. It is ultimately their responsibility not to stick mis-interpretations on the program that will make it pseudo-GPL-but-not-really (i.e: fig-leaf FOSS). I think that their resposibility is clarified pretty well in this document: * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but * * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.* -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best ICQ# 16849754 || friend ___ Linux-il mailing
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
On Friday 20 Nov 2009 01:21:29 guy keren wrote: Shlomi Fish wrote: On Friday 20 Nov 2009 00:18:03 Boris shtrasman wrote: Well my question arises after reading nmap copy file: ( http://nmap.org/svn/COPYING) * 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 * * * Wow! That seems like a gross mis-interpretation of what a derivative work means, and I don't think the FSF supports it to this exterme extent. A software which poses such restrictions may possibly not be free. The nmap originators cannot make claim for programs that executes nmap and parses its results (as long as the parsing code is 100% original), because this is not linking and so is not considered derivative works according to the traditional FSF interpretation. Of course, once nmap has made its software GPLed, there's little they can do to stop the devil from escaping. They can give their own absurd interpretation of the GPL or what derivative works mean, but I believe the law is on the side of my interpretation. the thing is - they write that their software is distributed under the terms of the GPL _with a list of exceptions and clarifications_ - which means they are using a modified version of the GPL. in this case, the interpretation of the FSF has nothing to do with nmap's license. In that case: 1. The licensing terms of nmap are not free-as-in-speech. 2. It may well be a violation of the licence of the text of the GPL itself. The text of the GPL is copyrighted under a restrictive licence, and I'm not sure it allows people modify it or add interpretative clauses to its beginning like that. How sad. Seems like nmap is on the Free Software Directory: http://directory.fsf.org/project/nmap/ The entry was last updated in 2005. I may have to contact the Free Software Directory maintainers about it and see what they say. and of-course, nmaps license has no bearing on the interpretation of a non-modified GPL license. Right. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Parody on The Fountainhead - http://shlom.in/towtf Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda ladyp...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Boris, on his Haifux talk about legal issues, this is a tricky subject. The FSF compliance lab team ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/team) supplies paid counseling for companies which wish to do what you want. Before i say to my employer to pay someone i wish to be sure in what i say , For instance i do know that there is no problem with BSD license software (invokation) or use of apache services. I didn't know there any representatives of FSF in IL , i guess I should start reading more israel LUGS. And i know of many talented law and software people are reading this list. The tricky thing is the intent of the license. As I understand, even if you follow the license to the letter, but not to the spirit, a judge may rule against you in court. I am not saying you can't do this, just that you need to legally verify your steps carefully (linux-il does not count). Another thing Yoni said is that when you add exceptions etc. to the GPL, you take away freedoms, and it makes GPLv3 null and void. You have a special place where you can add non-legal personal statements, and that's it. Is there a place to get the lecture ? Orna. Any way i'm going to ask this also on fsf mailing list and Nmap's thank for the help. P.s Sorry didn't see the messages till now.. -- -- Boris Shtrasman |Gnu/Linux Software developer | | IM : bo...@jabber.com | | URL : myrtfm.blogspot.com| ___ ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
Howdy , I'm a foss developer ,so i prefer to use tested techniques and good software. recently i found myself in a problem: I'm reimplementing good Foss solutions (parts of rsyslog , nmap , etc ... ) I can speed up my work (C++ developer) by using allready created GPLv3 and MIT software. As i see i need to use rsync (any variant) in closed source project in the next manner: application A calls rsync to upload to a file to remote server. (it is GPLv3 license afaik). Reading the license i didn't get a definitive answer. So when in need to develop with close source what is the way to use GPL tools ? As in plain binaries (no use in source code or source encapsulation). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
On Thursday 19 Nov 2009 23:24:04 Boris Shtrasman wrote: Howdy , I'm a foss developer ,so i prefer to use tested techniques and good software. recently i found myself in a problem: I'm reimplementing good Foss solutions (parts of rsyslog , nmap , etc ... ) I can speed up my work (C++ developer) by using allready created GPLv3 and MIT software. As i see i need to use rsync (any variant) in closed source project in the next manner: application A calls rsync to upload to a file to remote server. (it is GPLv3 license afaik). Reading the license i didn't get a definitive answer. So when in need to develop with close source what is the way to use GPL tools ? As in plain binaries (no use in source code or source encapsulation). If you're just executing GPLed binaries (using fork()+execve() or Win32's CreateProcess), then they can be executed from code of any licence, including proprietary licences. Only if you link to GPLed sources or include them inside your program, then you must release them under a GPL compatible licence. But it's possible for you to call other GPLv2/GPLv3 programs freely. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/ways_to_do_it.html Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
Hi Boris, you *CAN* use open source software with closed source application. The exception is when you're changing the source of the open source application, which means you'll need to give back the modification. I think linking to a FOSS product (GPL'd) is a bit more problematic, but for this you can write some simple wrappers. Thats my understanding anyway... Hetz 2009/11/19 Boris Shtrasman borissh1...@gmail.com Howdy , I'm a foss developer ,so i prefer to use tested techniques and good software. recently i found myself in a problem: I'm reimplementing good Foss solutions (parts of rsyslog , nmap , etc ... ) I can speed up my work (C++ developer) by using allready created GPLv3 and MIT software. As i see i need to use rsync (any variant) in closed source project in the next manner: application A calls rsync to upload to a file to remote server. (it is GPLv3 license afaik). Reading the license i didn't get a definitive answer. So when in need to develop with close source what is the way to use GPL tools ? As in plain binaries (no use in source code or source encapsulation). ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il -- Skepticism is the lazy person's default position. my blog (hebrew): http://benhamo.org ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
Well my question arises after reading nmap copy file: ( http://nmap.org/svn/COPYING) * 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 * * * On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Shlomi Fish shlo...@iglu.org.il wrote: On Thursday 19 Nov 2009 23:24:04 Boris Shtrasman wrote: Howdy , I'm a foss developer ,so i prefer to use tested techniques and good software. recently i found myself in a problem: I'm reimplementing good Foss solutions (parts of rsyslog , nmap , etc ... ) I can speed up my work (C++ developer) by using allready created GPLv3 and MIT software. As i see i need to use rsync (any variant) in closed source project in the next manner: application A calls rsync to upload to a file to remote server. (it is GPLv3 license afaik). Reading the license i didn't get a definitive answer. So when in need to develop with close source what is the way to use GPL tools ? As in plain binaries (no use in source code or source encapsulation). If you're just executing GPLed binaries (using fork()+execve() or Win32's CreateProcess), then they can be executed from code of any licence, including proprietary licences. Only if you link to GPLed sources or include them inside your program, then you must release them under a GPL compatible licence. But it's possible for you to call other GPLv2/GPLv3 programs freely. Thanks , that clears the issue for me . Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/ways_to_do_it.html Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice. -- -- -- Boris Shtrasman |Gnu/Linux Software developer | | IM : bo...@jabber.com | | URL : myrtfm.blogspot.com| ___ ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
On Friday 20 Nov 2009 00:18:03 Boris shtrasman wrote: Well my question arises after reading nmap copy file: ( http://nmap.org/svn/COPYING) * 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 * * * Wow! That seems like a gross mis-interpretation of what a derivative work means, and I don't think the FSF supports it to this exterme extent. A software which poses such restrictions may possibly not be free. The nmap originators cannot make claim for programs that executes nmap and parses its results (as long as the parsing code is 100% original), because this is not linking and so is not considered derivative works according to the traditional FSF interpretation. Of course, once nmap has made its software GPLed, there's little they can do to stop the devil from escaping. They can give their own absurd interpretation of the GPL or what derivative works mean, but I believe the law is on the side of my interpretation. Regards, Shlomi Fish On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Shlomi Fish shlo...@iglu.org.il wrote: On Thursday 19 Nov 2009 23:24:04 Boris Shtrasman wrote: Howdy , I'm a foss developer ,so i prefer to use tested techniques and good software. recently i found myself in a problem: I'm reimplementing good Foss solutions (parts of rsyslog , nmap , etc ... ) I can speed up my work (C++ developer) by using allready created GPLv3 and MIT software. As i see i need to use rsync (any variant) in closed source project in the next manner: application A calls rsync to upload to a file to remote server. (it is GPLv3 license afaik). Reading the license i didn't get a definitive answer. So when in need to develop with close source what is the way to use GPL tools ? As in plain binaries (no use in source code or source encapsulation). If you're just executing GPLed binaries (using fork()+execve() or Win32's CreateProcess), then they can be executed from code of any licence, including proprietary licences. Only if you link to GPLed sources or include them inside your program, then you must release them under a GPL compatible licence. But it's possible for you to call other GPLv2/GPLv3 programs freely. Thanks , that clears the issue for me . Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/ways_to_do_it.html Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice. -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Understand what Open Source is - http://shlom.in/oss-fs Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice. ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
Shlomi Fish wrote: On Friday 20 Nov 2009 00:18:03 Boris shtrasman wrote: Well my question arises after reading nmap copy file: ( http://nmap.org/svn/COPYING) * 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 * * * Wow! That seems like a gross mis-interpretation of what a derivative work means, and I don't think the FSF supports it to this exterme extent. A software which poses such restrictions may possibly not be free. The nmap originators cannot make claim for programs that executes nmap and parses its results (as long as the parsing code is 100% original), because this is not linking and so is not considered derivative works according to the traditional FSF interpretation. Of course, once nmap has made its software GPLed, there's little they can do to stop the devil from escaping. They can give their own absurd interpretation of the GPL or what derivative works mean, but I believe the law is on the side of my interpretation. the thing is - they write that their software is distributed under the terms of the GPL _with a list of exceptions and clarifications_ - which means they are using a modified version of the GPL. in this case, the interpretation of the FSF has nothing to do with nmap's license. and of-course, nmaps license has no bearing on the interpretation of a non-modified GPL license. --guy ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
Re: Using OpenSource software in closed source componies (how ?)
Hi Boris, on his Haifux talk about legal issues, this is a tricky subject. The FSF compliance lab team ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing/team) supplies paid counseling for companies which wish to do what you want. The tricky thing is the intent of the license. As I understand, even if you follow the license to the letter, but not to the spirit, a judge may rule against you in court. I am not saying you can't do this, just that you need to legally verify your steps carefully (linux-il does not count). Another thing Yoni said is that when you add exceptions etc. to the GPL, you take away freedoms, and it makes GPLv3 null and void. You have a special place where you can add non-legal personal statements, and that's it. Orna. 2009/11/19 Boris Shtrasman borissh1...@gmail.com Howdy , I'm a foss developer ,so i prefer to use tested techniques and good software. recently i found myself in a problem: I'm reimplementing good Foss solutions (parts of rsyslog , nmap , etc ... ) I can speed up my work (C++ developer) by using allready created GPLv3 and MIT software. As i see i need to use rsync (any variant) in closed source project in the next manner: application A calls rsync to upload to a file to remote server. (it is GPLv3 license afaik). Reading the license i didn't get a definitive answer. So when in need to develop with close source what is the way to use GPL tools ? As in plain binaries (no use in source code or source encapsulation). ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il ___ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
