Re: [OT] ntop / GPL (was Re: PF_RING: Include in main line kernel?)

[Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:55:21AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 02:47:06PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> > Hi Jarek, Brad, Luca,
> > 
> > [putting my gpl-violations.org hat on]
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > Brad Doctor wrote, On 10/14/2009 04:33 PM:
> > > 
> > > > Download ntop
> > > > 
> > > > ntop is distributed under the GNU GPL. In order to be entitled to download
> > > > ntop you must accept the GNU license. 
> > > 
> > > I can't find such a thing neither in GNU GPL v2:
> > 
> > This is true.  The GPL does never need to be accepted for mere use (i.e.
> > running) the program.  This is at least true for the continental european
> > copyright systems, where any legally obtained copy of a program implicitly
> > carries the permission for running the program.  Only for any other activity
> > you will need to accept the license.
> > 
> > but, like others posted in this thread, ntop is not the PF_RING code.
> 
> ntop doesn't matter here at all:

Or more precisely: "ntop is not PF_RING code" doesn't matter here,
because it all suggests we have a false statement wrt. PF_RING.
(But Brad acknowledged this needs the change.)

> 
> if ((X uses the stock GPL license.) &&
>     (Y is distributed under the GNU GPL) &&
>     (In order to be entitled to download Y
>      you must accept the GNU license.) &&
>     (The GPL does never need to be accepted for mere use.))
> 
> 	is logically false.
> 
> BTW, legal systems don't matter here at all.

IOW: if this point of GNU GPL isn't true for some copyright system,
means GNU GPL can't be valid in such a system.

Jarek P.