Re: nmap is non-free software

[Sebastian]

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:10:05PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> [...] Proprietary software companies wishing to use or incorporate
>> Covered Software within their programs must contact Licensor to
>> purchase a separate license. [...]

A lot here depends on whether (notice the brackets) it is:

> Proprietary software companies wishing to { use } or { incorporate Covered
> Software within their programs } must contact Licensor to purchase a
> separate license.

or:

> Proprietary software companies wishing to { use or incorporate Covered
> Software within their programs } must contact Licensor to purchase a
> separate license.

The first interpretation, as Alfred M. Szmidt puts forward, would
certainly make nmap non-free. However, the second interpretation is using
'use' and 'incorporate' as synonyms, thus not necessarily being non-free
(the plain GPL restricts direct inclusion within proprietary software
but is still free).

I think a lot hinges on which interpretation is used here.

Regardless, I have further doubts about this license:

It is not clear to me whether the 'derivative works' section is merely
supposed to explain the concept, or whether it is a separate contractual
restriction.

> To avoid any misunderstandings, we consider software to constitute a
> "derivative work" of Covered Software for the purposes of this license
> if it does any of the following:

> ...

> Reads or includes Covered Software data files, such as nmap-os-db or
> nmap-service-probes.

This is because it appears to claim that programs designed to read nmap
data files are derivative works. The claim is not true, as such programs
needn't contain (copyrighted) nmap code to function. If however, that
was a *contractual* restriction rather than a statement on copyright
law, then it would make nmap non-free.

Best wishes,

Sebastian

--
- Freenode: 'seabass'
- Matrix: '@seabass:chat.weho.st'
- FSD: 'freefish'