From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [OT] ntop / GPL (was Re: PF_RING: Include in main line kernel?) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:12:32 +0000 Message-ID: <20091019071232.GA6464@ff.dom.local> References: <4AD60053.1030804@gmail.com> <20091018124706.GG27747@prithivi.gnumonks.org> <20091019055521.GA5948@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Brad Doctor , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Luca Deri To: Harald Welte Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f228.google.com ([209.85.220.228]:42350 "EHLO mail-fx0-f228.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752674AbZJSHMe (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:12:34 -0400 Received: by fxm28 with SMTP id 28so4776025fxm.18 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091019055521.GA5948@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.