23 ms·

So are they saying they only intended to bundle the crapware with closed source software, or am I misunderstanding?

• metafour 15y ago
  That's what I took away from their release too. I'm guessing they know some open source licenses specifically forbid what they did due to the nmap posting and are just trying to CYA.
  • bdonlan 15y ago
    Most open source licenses don't forbid 'mere bundling' with some other software, even if said other software is Evil. Most likely download.com just doesn't want to have to deal with source distribution requirements from GPL/LGPL software.
    • metafour 15y ago
      I don't doubt that you are correct. This is what I was recalling and referring to from the seclist post regarding nmap: This is exactly why Nmap isn't under the plain GPL. Our license (http://nmap.org/book/man-legal.html http://nmap.org/book/man-legal.html) specifically adds a clause forbidding software which "integrates/includes/aggregates Nmap into a proprietary executable installer" unless that software itself conforms to various GPL requirements (this proprietary C|Net download.com software and the toolbar don't). Can't imagine they would want to release the source code to their software at any point, it's easier to just make a blanket statement that you don't intend to bundle any open source software with it. Even if that's not what you actually do which seems to be the case according to some of the other comments.
• eren-tantekin 15y ago
  Interestingly, yes. In fact they are clearly stating it: "It is a Download.com policy not to bundle open source software and we will continue to take pains to ensure this does not happen again."