Subject: Re: [OT] ntop / GPL (was Re: PF_RING: Include in main line kernel?)

From: Jarek Poplawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:55:21 +0000

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.