A Weird Interpretation of the GPL

[Shlomi Fish]

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

Re: A Weird Interpretation of the GPL

[Shai Berger]

On Friday 11 December 2009, Shlomi Fish wrote:
 On Friday 11 Dec 2009 14:01:11 Shai Berger wrote:
  Shlomi,
 
  Why do you bother those of us who are not subscribed to Linux-IL with an
  argument for which you have received (what appears to be) a satisfactory
  answer in the original forum --
  http://www.mail-archive.com/linux...@cs.huji.ac.il/msg57007.html ?
 
 1. It's more on-topic here.
 

Granted.

 2. I didn't find the answer satisfactory - essentially Tzafrir said
  everyone can interpret the GPL as he sees fits and there will be Chaos
  across the land.
 

No, he said that earlier. What he said this time was that everyone can 
interpret *any* license as they see fit. The intelligent reader may be 
expected to infer the missing and be laughed out of court. Actually, there's 
no need for that.

For the actual matter at stake, it is my (non-lawyer) opinion that their 
interpretation is no more valid than an interpretation of the 3-clause BSD 
license that says the copyright holder is owed money for use of the program.

One more point about your argument there: You present it as if it were an 
attack on the {L,}GPL for invoking the undefined, vague notion of derived 
work. But what you end up with -- just use a permissive license -- is an 
attack on copyleft itself. That is you do not attack the instrument at hand, 
but the intention in its use. That is fine, if you're upfront about it.

  One thing contributing to the strength of Tzafrir's comments there is
  that in three weeks, you never bothered to refute them. Instead, you
  chose to simply repeat your claims to a different forum. Why?
 
 See above.
 

The above answers why you repeated your claims to a different forum, not 
why did you fail to refute the counter argument -- except, perhaps, that 
part of that message somehow escaped your attention.

 Thanks (not!) for top-posting.
 
I stand corrected. I should have indeed removed the part of your message I was 
not responding directly to. Thanks for fixing that for me.

- Shai.
___
Discussions mailing list
Discussions@hamakor.org.il
http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussions