[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091019055521.GA5948@ff.dom.local>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:55:21 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>
Cc: Brad Doctor <brad.doctor@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Luca Deri <deri@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [OT] ntop / GPL (was Re: PF_RING: Include in main line kernel?)
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:
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.
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists