Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 ------- Additional Comments From yaneti@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-02 13:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > > The upstream for ntop has a rather distorted interpretation of the GPL as can be > > seen in the distribution terms of another one of their wares - nProbe. > > http://www.ntop.org/nProbe.html. > > > > So even if it says GPL, its most likely not what the authors really mean. > > He sells nProbe, a GPl'ed application he authors... nothing wrong there. Right. Except when he contradicts the GPL with placing additional restrictions, say: "Note that for nProbe OEM reselling (including device embed) you need a written commercial licence that's available on request from its author." Perhaps he believes the GPL to be that restrictive, which I don't think it is. > Please, this is a GPL'ed application and as such, subject to the terms and > conditions of the GPL and should be evaluated as such. My point was that perhaps the author reads the GPL differently than everybody else. A possible argument about whats on paper (GPL) and what the author means ("reselling (including device embed) you need a written commercial licence that's available on request") is an invitation to lawyerland. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review