4 ms·

What's the issue? 1. Delve Labs has commercial scanners (https://www.delvelabs.ca/warden-scanner/ https://www.delvelabs.ca/warden-scanner/ and https://www.delv

by tshtf 12y ago

What's the issue? 1. Delve Labs has commercial scanners (https://www.delvelabs.ca/warden-scanner/ https://www.delvelabs.ca/warden-scanner/ and https://www.delvelabs.ca/warden-pro/ https://www.delvelabs.ca/warden-pro/) which bundle wpscan. 2. Delve Labs chose not to pay for the commercial license for wpscan (https://github.com/wpscanteam/wpscan https://github.com/wpscanteam/wpscan) 3. Delve Labs clearly falls under the "Commercialization" clause of the new wpscan license It seems to me like commercial products that take a free ride on dual-licensed GPL products should just pay the fee.

RRRA 12y ago
Except that is the AGPL not the GPL which allows you to run free software as a service. Also, a commercialization clause (that is probably incompatible with the GPL) is not the same as a dual licence.
- stgraber 12y ago
  Correct, a commercialization clause is clearly incompatible with the GPL as is mentioned in their FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary So short of proper dual-licensing (which this isn't), that clause isn't valid.
harwoodr 12y ago
Software that a commercial entity decides it would like to use under a closed sourced license - sure that's when a dual-license is applicable. GPL software that a commercial entity releases their source code modifications - that's still GPL. You can't say commercial uses aren't allowed under the GPL. Forking the codebase from before the license change? Yep, allowable under the GPL... Seems like a lot of ranting/raving over hurt feelings...
p8952 12y ago
It seems more like: 1. Delve Labs has commercial scanners which bundle but do not link with WPScan. 2. WPScan, previously licensed under the GPL, introduce a commercialization clause in addition to the GPL. Side Note. WPScan may not have the right to do this because they do not use copyright attribution. Without this they need permission from everyone who has ever contributed code to their project. 3. WPScan demand money from Delve Labs. 4. Delve Labs make a fork from a point before WPScan introduced the commercialization clause. They keep this version licensed under the GPL.
- harwoodr 12y ago
  Yep. I think the WPScan guy doesn't understand how the GPL works... and seems to think that having a "wrapper" around it for commercial/non-commercial somehow lets him circumvent the GPL intent. Forking the code from before the license change is an excellent way to keep free software free - and yes, I think he'll have to get permission from every prior contributor before he can legally change the license.
- RRRA 12y ago
  See this comment where they list all the (probably unaware) contributors: https://www.delvelabs.ca/robbed-gunpoint/#comment-1811325060 https://www.delvelabs.ca/robbed-gunpoint/#comment-1811325060
xj9 12y ago
What's the point of non-commercial GPL? I'm not a hard line copyleft guy, but I don't understand why you would make something "open source" when its really freeware.
- p8952 12y ago
  Indeed, not to mention the GPL explicitly forbids this[1]. The point of the GPL is to fight for the rights of the user, no matter if that user is a single hacker wanting to tinker with the code or a giant multinational wanting to use it for $$$. 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary

by tshtf 12y ago

RRRA 12y ago

Except that is the AGPL not the GPL which allows you to run free software as a service. Also, a commercialization clause (that is probably incompatible with the GPL) is not the same as a dual licence.

stgraber 12y ago
Correct, a commercialization clause is clearly incompatible with the GPL as is mentioned in their FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary So short of proper dual-licensing (which this isn't), that clause isn't valid.

harwoodr 12y ago

Software that a commercial entity decides it would like to use under a closed sourced license - sure that's when a dual-license is applicable. GPL software that a commercial entity releases their source code modifications - that's still GPL. You can't say commercial uses aren't allowed under the GPL. Forking the codebase from before the license change? Yep, allowable under the GPL... Seems like a lot of ranting/raving over hurt feelings...

p8952 12y ago

It seems more like: 1. Delve Labs has commercial scanners which bundle but do not link with WPScan. 2. WPScan, previously licensed under the GPL, introduce a commercialization clause in addition to the GPL. Side Note. WPScan may not have the right to do this because they do not use copyright attribution. Without this they need permission from everyone who has ever contributed code to their project. 3. WPScan demand money from Delve Labs. 4. Delve Labs make a fork from a point before WPScan introduced the commercialization clause. They keep this version licensed under the GPL.

harwoodr 12y ago
Yep. I think the WPScan guy doesn't understand how the GPL works... and seems to think that having a "wrapper" around it for commercial/non-commercial somehow lets him circumvent the GPL intent. Forking the code from before the license change is an excellent way to keep free software free - and yes, I think he'll have to get permission from every prior contributor before he can legally change the license.
RRRA 12y ago
See this comment where they list all the (probably unaware) contributors: https://www.delvelabs.ca/robbed-gunpoint/#comment-1811325060 https://www.delvelabs.ca/robbed-gunpoint/#comment-1811325060

xj9 12y ago

What's the point of non-commercial GPL? I'm not a hard line copyleft guy, but I don't understand why you would make something "open source" when its really freeware.

p8952 12y ago
Indeed, not to mention the GPL explicitly forbids this[1]. The point of the GPL is to fight for the rights of the user, no matter if that user is a single hacker wanting to tinker with the code or a giant multinational wanting to use it for $$$. 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary