Re: [Nagios-devel] Re: AW: Re: [Nagios-users] Nagios 3.0,natively windows codes,support mysql,support agentless monitor , new web interface,more,Greatly

Support forum for Nagios Core, Nagios Plugins, NCPA, NRPE, NSCA, NDOUtils and more. Engage with the community of users including those using the open source solutions.
Locked
Guest

Re: [Nagios-devel] Re: AW: Re: [Nagios-users] Nagios 3.0,natively windows codes,support mysql,support agentless monitor , new web interface,more,Greatly

Post by Guest »

--jI8keyz6grp/JLjh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

hey,

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:18:41AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> >of course, this largely depends on whether or not you need to compile
> >them against nagios source/headers, whether or not the modules
> >are useful in their own right apart from nagios, and other factors
> >which could determine their status as "derived works" or not.
>=20
> Yes. This is actually pretty tricky. One of the modules I'm writing now=
=20
> uses a spooling mechanism for binary data to be distributed to several=20
> hosts. This spooling mechanism was originally proprietary, but if we=20
> have to make it GPL, then so be it. It's possible though that GPL'd code=
=20
> can be linked to proprietary code (rather than vice versa) which would=20
> be the case. This is what the lawyers are looking in to.

unfortunately you can't have gpl'd code link against non-gpl'd
code either. that would definitely fall under either the "modification"
category or "derivative work". this has been a major PITA in debian, becau=
se
there are a lot of good-intentioned software projects that license their
code under the GPL, but then link it against openssl libraries[1]. =20

this ties in pretty heavily to section 2b, with a bit of 4, and 6.

of course ianal, but from my dealings with the gpl, your best
bet is to change/clarify license terms with ethan to allow proprietary
modules if that's what you want. or just gpl the modules, which would
make everyone else happy :)

> >this is true, under the circumstance that you provide source code
> >along with the binary GPL'd software, or have otherwise provided
> >the information they need to locate the original source code (or
> >give an offer to provide said code). sections 1 and 2 only address how
> >you can handle the source code--section 3 clarifies for what you can do
> >with binary-only distribution.
>=20
> The stuff at oss.op5.se is source-code only, so that's ok then.

i was really referring to the final product that you distribute
to your customers.

anyway, i'll follow up with the rest in private...


sean

[1] there are some cases where you can get away with such linking, but
only if such libraries are considered part of the "core operating
system".

--jI8keyz6grp/JLjh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDErQ+ynjLPm522B0RApQeAJ9C8g/FRo86fwVYB2qXC9j1hCCO3wCaA/AM
dn5pB41ShLDF/5bwI5fXOZI=
=ddZV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jI8keyz6grp/JLjh--





This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]
Locked