Debian Bug report logs - #570621
RFP: gnetworktester -- test the quality of a network

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:00:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:00:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:00:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: RFP: gnetworktester -- test the quality of a network connection
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:55:52 +0100
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

Package name    : gnetworktester
Version         : 0.11
Upstream Author : Max V. Stotsky
URL             : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnetworktester/
License         : GPL3
Programming Lang: Python
Description     : test the quality of a network connection

Gnetworktester is an application that helps users in testing the
quality of a network connection and in sending complaints on
that to the network provider. A procedure of testing takes three
steps: choosing the network nodes; automatic pinging of those
nodes to collect statistics on packet losses, delays, and
overall quality; and automatic report writing.




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:48:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:48:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>
To: 570621@bugs.debian.org, Debian Bug Tracking System <control@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Taking over
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 02:44:51 +0700
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
retitle 570621 ITP: gnetworktester -- test the quality of a network
connection
owner 570621 Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com.
thanks

I'll take care for this package

-- 
[ Mahyuddin Susanto ]
http://tripledin.wordpress.com/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Changed Bug title to 'ITP: gnetworktester -- test the quality of a network' from 'RFP: gnetworktester -- test the quality of a network connection' Request was from Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:48:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Owner recorded as Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com.. Request was from Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:48:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Owner changed from Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com. to Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. Request was from Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:51:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:03:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:03:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #21 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>
To: 570621@bugs.debian.org
Cc: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: RFS: gnetworktester
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 04:00:51 +0700
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnetworktester".

* Package name    : gnetworktester
  Version         : 0.11.1-1
  Upstream Author : Max V. Stotsky <ms@pereslavl.ru>
* URL             : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnetworktester/
* License         : GPL-3
  Section         : net

It builds these binary packages:
gnetworktester - testing of stability and quality of network connection

The package appears to be lintian clean both source and binary package.

The upload would fix these bugs: 570621

My motivation for maintaining this package is: I want to provide a
simply package for network tester

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnetworktester
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnetworktester/gnetworktester_0.11.1-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 Mahyuddin Susanto

-- 
[ Mahyuddin Susanto ]
http://tripledin.wordpress.com/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:51:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:51:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #26 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>
To: Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>
Cc: 570621@bugs.debian.org, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RFS: gnetworktester
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:46:27 +0200
Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com> writes:
> * Package name    : gnetworktester
>   Version         : 0.11.1-1
>   Upstream Author : Max V. Stotsky <ms@pereslavl.ru>
> * URL             : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnetworktester/
> * License         : GPL-3
>   Section         : net

I'm not a mentor but noticed something you might want to
check.

gnetworktester seems to parse the output of nmap and nmap upstream at
http://insecure.org/nmap/data/COPYING gives me the impression that
gnetworktester would thus be "derivative work". Since GPL-2 is not
compatible with GPL-3 you might want take a closer look at this and
maybe explain why it is not an issue in debian/copyright.





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:06:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:06:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #31 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Cc: Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>, 570621@bugs.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Parsing output = derivative work? (was: RFS: gnetworktester)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:04:35 +0100
(out of curiosity moved to debian-legal)

On 2011-03-05 23:46, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> gnetworktester seems to parse the output of nmap and nmap upstream at
> http://insecure.org/nmap/data/COPYING gives me the impression that
> gnetworktester would thus be "derivative work".

IANAL, but since when parsing the output of another program
constitutes a derivative work? Indeed, the forementioned file
says, a program would be a derivate in the authors
interpretation of the GPL, if it

"""
 o Executes Nmap and parses the results (as opposed to typical shell or
   execution-menu apps, which simply display raw Nmap output and so are
   not derivative works.)
 o Integrates/includes/aggregates Nmap into a proprietary executable
   installer, such as those produced by InstallShield.
 o Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the above
"""

What do the legal experts think about this, especially the
parsing aspect?




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:57:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:57:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #36 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>
To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>, 570621@bugs.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Parsing output = derivative work? (was: RFS: gnetworktester)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:52:03 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:04:35 +0100 W. Martin Borgert wrote:

> (out of curiosity moved to debian-legal)

(I guess you intended to ask to keep the other recipients in Cc: if so,
you should ask explicitly)

> 
> On 2011-03-05 23:46, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> > gnetworktester seems to parse the output of nmap and nmap upstream at
> > http://insecure.org/nmap/data/COPYING gives me the impression that
> > gnetworktester would thus be "derivative work".
> 
> IANAL, but since when parsing the output of another program
> constitutes a derivative work?

IANAL either, but I don't think that parsing the output of a program
creates a derivative-base relationship...

> Indeed, the forementioned file
> says, a program would be a derivate in the authors
> interpretation of the GPL, if it
> 
> """
>  o Executes Nmap and parses the results (as opposed to typical shell or
>    execution-menu apps, which simply display raw Nmap output and so are
>    not derivative works.)
[...]
> """
> 
> What do the legal experts think about this, especially the
> parsing aspect?

It looks awkward, at least to me.

Even the FSF's interpretation (which stretches the definition of
derivative work quite a bit, in the attempt to defend the copyleft
mechanism of the GNU GPL) seems to assert that there's no derivation
going on, when the two programs "communicate at arms length" [1].

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

I would say that two programs communicate "at arms length", when one
executes the other and parses its output... 

Let's anyway wait for the opinion of other debian-legal regulars.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:54:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:54:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #41 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>
To: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>, 570621@bugs.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Parsing output = derivative work? (was: RFS: gnetworktester)
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:51:04 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 12:04 +0100, W. Martin Borgert a écrit : 
> (out of curiosity moved to debian-legal)
> 
> On 2011-03-05 23:46, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> > gnetworktester seems to parse the output of nmap and nmap upstream at
> > http://insecure.org/nmap/data/COPYING gives me the impression that
> > gnetworktester would thus be "derivative work".
> 
> IANAL, but since when parsing the output of another program
> constitutes a derivative work? 

The distinction between a derivative work and a separate work is not
based on technology but on functionality. 

Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a
court, there wouldn’t be any.

-- 
 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'  “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
  `-    […] I will see what I can do for you.”  -- Jörg Schilling

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 20:39:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Tim Brown <debian@machine.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Sun, 06 Mar 2011 20:39:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #46 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tim Brown <debian@machine.org.uk>
To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Cc: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>, 570621@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Parsing output = derivative work? (was: RFS: gnetworktester)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 20:20:37 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
--nextPart2958378.qgascxSZ95
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday 06 March 2011 11:04:35 W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> (out of curiosity moved to debian-legal)
>=20
> On 2011-03-05 23:46, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> > gnetworktester seems to parse the output of nmap and nmap upstream at
> > http://insecure.org/nmap/data/COPYING gives me the impression that
> > gnetworktester would thus be "derivative work".
>=20
> IANAL, but since when parsing the output of another program
> constitutes a derivative work? Indeed, the forementioned file
> says, a program would be a derivate in the authors
> interpretation of the GPL, if it
>=20
> """
>  o Executes Nmap and parses the results (as opposed to typical shell or
>    execution-menu apps, which simply display raw Nmap output and so are
>    not derivative works.)
>  o Integrates/includes/aggregates Nmap into a proprietary executable
>    installer, such as those produced by InstallShield.
>  o Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the above
> """
>=20
> What do the legal experts think about this, especially the
> parsing aspect?

This may fall outside of the Debian maintainer's role as a packager but you=
=20
could take a look at how OpenVAS does this since we (the OpenVAS project)=20
worked hard with Fyodor and the nmap folk to get something both we and they=
=20
feel comfortable with.  I can probably dig out some references from our and=
=20
their mailing lists too if necessary.

Tim
=2D-=20
Tim Brown
<mailto:tmb@65535.com>

--nextPart2958378.qgascxSZ95
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=Ebhq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2958378.qgascxSZ95--

-- 
Tim Brown
<mailto:debian@machine.org.uk>
<http://www.machine.org.uk/>
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #51 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>
To: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>, 570621@bugs.debian.org
Cc: "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:52:06 +0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 03/06/2011 11:51 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 12:04 +0100, W. Martin Borgert a écrit : 
>> (out of curiosity moved to debian-legal)
>>
>> On 2011-03-05 23:46, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
>>> gnetworktester seems to parse the output of nmap and nmap upstream at
>>> http://insecure.org/nmap/data/COPYING gives me the impression that
>>> gnetworktester would thus be "derivative work".
>>
>> IANAL, but since when parsing the output of another program
>> constitutes a derivative work? 
> 
> The distinction between a derivative work and a separate work is not
> based on technology but on functionality. 
> 
> Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
> if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
> it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
> linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a
> court, there wouldn’t be any.
> 

Thanks for CCing to debian-legal
anyway, i'm really confused for this packages, but i'm open for input
for a best solutions

as i know, gnetworktester parsing nmap output by running nmap (see
src/nmap.py).

Any suggest? thanks before
- -- 
[ Mahyuddin Susanto ]
http://tripledin.wordpress.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk12NIMACgkQdr7GbwjmqKXa6gEAvBKeLR9Xv9N4pag+cHgDIHRR
PYQcLEJhnwG1rm6zab8BANztIkFef+hdvdsucWs8XZNtEbcz70gn8b5VkYzBPTpG
=7x4x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #56 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org>
To: 570621@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:54:24 +0100
2011/3/8 Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
>> Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
>> if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
>> it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
>> linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a
>> court, there wouldn’t be any.
>>
>
> Thanks for CCing to debian-legal
> anyway, i'm really confused for this packages, but i'm open for input
> for a best solutions

In general, I wouldn't consider parsing the output of another program
to de a derivative work. According to the GPL FAQ [1]:

"Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with
two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will
decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the
mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a
shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication
(what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are
communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs.
So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are
separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are
intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too
could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger
program. "

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

Greetings,
Miry




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #61 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>
To: Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>
Cc: Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>, 570621@bugs.debian.org, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:34:23 +0100
Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 07:30 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : 
> >> Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
> >> if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
> >> it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
> >> linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a
> >> court, there wouldn’t be any.
> 
> By this reasoning, if I write a program which converts another word processor's
> output to Microsoft Word format, then that program is a derivative of
> Microsoft Word, at least until Open Office gets a filter good enough to read
> it.

This is a completely unrelated case. Functionally, such a program can
work without Microsoft Word.

> Moreover, by this reasoning, if I write a program that runs only on Windows,
> or which interfaces with some proprietary Windows protocol, Microsoft can
> legitimately claim that I am violating their copyright by creating an
> unauthorized derivative of their work.

Microsoft gives you explicit permission to link to the system libraries
provided with Windows.

> This definition of "derivative work" is something which the FSF claims, but
> which many people outside the FSF are skeptical of precisely because of
> absurd consequences like these.

If you want to prove something is absurd, please point to absurdities
first.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :     “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know
`. `'       that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.”
  `-        --  J???rg Schilling





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:06:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:06:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #66 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net>
To: Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>
Cc: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>, 570621@bugs.debian.org, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@iki.fi>, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 07:30:55 -0800 (PST)
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
>> The distinction between a derivative work and a separate work is not
>> based on technology but on functionality.
>>
>> Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
>> if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
>> it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
>> linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a
>> court, there wouldn’t be any.

By this reasoning, if I write a program which converts another word processor's
output to Microsoft Word format, then that program is a derivative of
Microsoft Word, at least until Open Office gets a filter good enough to read
it.

Moreover, by this reasoning, if I write a program that runs only on Windows,
or which interfaces with some proprietary Windows protocol, Microsoft can
legitimately claim that I am violating their copyright by creating an
unauthorized derivative of their work.

This definition of "derivative work" is something which the FSF claims, but
which many people outside the FSF are skeptical of precisely because of
absurd consequences like these.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Walter Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #71 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Walter Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu>
To: miriam@debian.org
Cc: 570621@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:23:22 -0800 (PST)
Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org> wrote:
> In general, I wouldn't consider parsing the output of another
> program to de a derivative work.

In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another
program does not make a derivative work.  But just to give an example
of where it does happen, git is largely comprised of many small
utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@caltech.edu




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:51:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:51:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #76 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
To: 570621@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:49:11 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 09:23:22AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org> wrote:
> > In general, I wouldn't consider parsing the output of another
> > program to de a derivative work.
> 
> In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another
> program does not make a derivative work.  But just to give an example
> of where it does happen, git is largely comprised of many small
> utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments.

At first glance, that's a good point.  However, do you really mean to
say that all the git-* tools written by others should be considered
derivative works then?  Things like git-svn, git-cvs (oookay, so there
might be some doubt about those), things like git-buildpackage and
git-annex?  Would that mean that the GPL-3+ git-annex is in violation,
since most of the base Git is under a GPL-2 (no +) license? :)

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org peter@packetscale.com
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
This sentence contradicts itself - or rather - well, no, actually it doesn't!
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:36:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Noel David Torres Taño <envite@rolamasao.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:36:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #81 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noel David Torres Taño <envite@rolamasao.org>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Cc: 570621@bugs.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:27:28 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
> Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org> wrote:
> > In general, I wouldn't consider parsing the output of another
> > program to de a derivative work.
> 
> In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another
> program does not make a derivative work.  But just to give an example
> of where it does happen, git is largely comprised of many small
> utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments.

It happens (to me) to be as simple as this:

If the parsed program is susbtituted by a clone will the parsing program 
continue working?

If the answer is yes, since it is absurd that the parsing program is a 
derivative work of all possible clones at the same time, then clearly it is 
not a derivative work. If the answer is no, then clearly the parsing program 
depends on the parsed one 'in an intimate way'.

Can a clone or sucessor of nmap be used with gnetworktester?

Regards

Noel
er Envite
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>:
Bug#570621; Package wnpp. (Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:21:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. (Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:21:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #86 received at 570621@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>
To: Noel David Torres Taño <envite@rolamasao.org>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, 570621@bugs.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:18:14 +0100
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 11:27 +0000, Noel David Torres Taño a
écrit : 
> > Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org> wrote:
> > In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another
> > program does not make a derivative work.  But just to give an example
> > of where it does happen, git is largely comprised of many small
> > utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments.
> 
> It happens (to me) to be as simple as this:
> 
> If the parsed program is susbtituted by a clone will the parsing program 
> continue working?

If the shared library is substituted by a clone reimplementing the same
API/ABI, will the program linking to it continue working?

> If the answer is yes, since it is absurd that the parsing program is a 
> derivative work of all possible clones at the same time, then clearly it is 
> not a derivative work. If the answer is no, then clearly the parsing program 
> depends on the parsed one 'in an intimate way'.
> 
> Can a clone or sucessor of nmap be used with gnetworktester?

I agree that if such clone exists (and that holds for libraries too), it
is not a derivative work.

Nothing specific to parsing the output of another program here.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :     “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know
`. `'       that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.”
  `-        --  J???rg Schilling





Changed Bug title to 'RFP: gnetworktester -- test the quality of a network' from 'ITP: gnetworktester -- test the quality of a network' Request was from Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Removed annotation that Bug was owned by Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com>. Request was from Mahyuddin Susanto <udienz@ubuntu.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:51:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Wed Apr 23 11:32:31 2014; Machine Name: beach.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.