Re: Nmap/Nessus copyright

[Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org>]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 12:36:54AM -0700, ADT wrote:
> In your last email you said:
>
> > The Nmap license is a modified version of the GPL.  The modifications
> > and interpretations are stated up top.
>
> Which isn't what the COPYING file says:
>
> "We don't consider these to be added restrictions on top of the GPL, but
>  just a clarification of how we interpret "derived works" as it applies
>   to our GPL-licensed Nmap product."

Yeah, we consider the "derivative works" part to be simple
clarifications of how we interpret the GPL license text.  But you can
disagree and consider them modifications to the GPL if you wish.

When I said "The Nmap license is a modified version of the GPL" above,
I was mostly referring to the OpenSSL exception.  But again, some
people might consider the "derivative works" treatment to be a
modification.  It is a license requirement in any case.

> 2) Nmap is NOT licensed under the GPLv2 but rather some kind of
> modified license in which case you shouldn't be saying it's GPL,

That is it, and I'm not trying to pass Nmap off as pure GPL.  Everyone
agrees that it is at least modified to permit linking with OpenSSL.
The Nmap download page says ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/nmap_download.html ):

  "Nmap is distributed with source code under the terms of the GNU
   General Public License, with certain clarifications and exceptions
   noted in the COPYING[link] file."

All the terms we've been discussing are included in the COPYING file
distributed with Nmap, in the man page, on the web page, at the top of
every source file, etc.  If anyone has trouble finding the Nmap
license, they aren't looking very hard.

> including the preamble (unless you made arrangements with the FSF
> beforehand) or mentioning GNU at the end.

I have had discussions with the FSF (years ago) about the Nmap
license.  They seem to be happy with things as they are, but they are
certainly welcome to bring up any concerns they might have.

> Honestly, I understand your *intent* which I fully respect.  I just
> don't understand what the actual license is.

Good.  Then I hope this mail helps.  Maybe I'll work on clarifying the
license text at some point, but right now improving and maintaining
the code itself is a higher priority.  If you have specific
suggestions, please send them my way.

Cheers,
-F