lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:55:21 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <>
To:	Harald Welte <>
Cc:	Brad Doctor <>,,
	Luca Deri <>
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 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
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists