# What you may and may not do under GPL ?



## overmind (Oct 8, 2009)

Hello Guys,

I was trying to install dansguardian from FreeBSD ports and I got the following error:


```
dev# cd /usr/ports/www/dansguardian
dev# make install clean
===>  dansguardian-2.10.0.3 commercial source download is restricted.  
Please visit and read http://dansguardian.org/index.php?page=copyright2 and 
download dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz into /usr/ports/distfiles before running 
make.
*** Error code 1
```

By visiting their website I've found that:
1. "Dansguardian v.2 is licensed under the GPL version 2"
2. I cannot use that software for commercial purposes.

Now from my understanding, I cannot use sourcecode of a GPLv2 software to make a commercial program. If I use GPL I must release the modified sourcecode of my app for free.

But compiling (without modifying) of an open source software and selling the binaries, this is allowed.
Red Hat sells their RHEL distribution for big money, without buying any license from open source developers of every app that is in that distro.

So GPL license reffers to source code not to binary.

If I am right then people from dansguardian are not licensing that sofware as GPL because they not allow commercial use.

Here is how they understand GPL2:

"[2] Commercial Use: Use (running, selling, installing for a charge, installing as part of a service, developing further and selling, using as part of a product) by any commercial or non-commercial organisation. Commercial use specifically excludes use (running and installing) by educational establishments and others listed under non-commercial use. Commercial use specifically excludes the act of selling DansGuardian 2 as part of an unix-like OS distribution by companies such as RedHat or Mandrake or their resellers."

You can read all here: http://dansguardian.org/index.php?page=copyright2 .

Then my question: is dansguardian really GPL? Can I use precompiled binaries from them and make money of it?


----------



## vermaden (Oct 8, 2009)

Cannot link code on license other then GPL.
Cannot redistribute software without source code (if you do not redistribute the software and do modifications internally, you do not have to release source code).

At least for GPL2, GPL3 is other story ...


----------



## overmind (Oct 8, 2009)

That was my understanding too. But on that section they say is a commercial software if i run/use software.

If I implement dansguardian at the company I work for, according to their page, this is commercial use and I must pay. And this is not GPL.

So if they sue, they would win because they say on their website that commercial use in their understanding means "use in a company" or the company who use it would win because it is GPL (according to their site too).

Or this GPL thing is just a trick to make people from open source world programm for them?


----------



## sossego (Oct 8, 2009)

The GPL licenses can be either good or bad.
Old software that no longer has official support can continue being used and modified. Your ideas are protected by making them open. 

The bad part is you have to release code and binary both. 
There's more to it but I am leaving it there.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Oct 8, 2009)

But isn't that 'commercial use' clause only applicable to 'downloading from their site'? The [2] clause you quote above is an extension to (clarification of) "DansGuardian 2 - download from this site restrictions for commercial use", which states:



> Once you have a copy of the software there are no restrictions on use commercial or otherwise. It is purely GPL software. You can download or obtain DansGuardian from many sources and I place no restriction on those. It is only the downloading from this site that is restricted.



It still makes me want to take a bath, though.


----------



## overmind (Oct 8, 2009)

Yes, you are right, their license refers to downloading from their site. But if I want to build from FreeBSD port they ask me to download it from their website. 

If I do not want that, from where should I download dansguardian GPL sources?

If I download dansguardian source code for non commercial use and then that code I put on other website and then can I download it from ther for commercial use (kind of lame) ?

By doing:


```
dev# pkg_info -r dansguardian-2.10.0.3
Information for dansguardian-2.10.0.3:

Depends on:
Dependency: expat-2.0.1
Dependency: perl-5.8.9_3
Dependency: pkg-config-0.23_1
Dependency: pcre-7.9
Dependency: libiconv-1.13.1
Dependency: apache-2.2.13
Dependency: unzoo-4.4_2
Dependency: lha-1.14i_6
Dependency: arj-3.10.22_1
Dependency: arc-5.21o_1
Dependency: clamav-0.95.2
```

I notice dansguardian uses GPLed software so it should be GPL. I just am confused about that "do not use it commercialy, and if I install this at my company, that is commercial use."   RHEL is commercial, Barracuda is commercial, any Linux installed on a webhosing company is for commercial purpose.

In other words, do you guys know other open-source content filter software that is under FreeBSD ports?


----------



## SirDice (Oct 8, 2009)

GPL covers the source code and what can/must be done with it. It has nothing to do with _how_ dansguardian is going to be used which is what that whole license page is about.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Oct 8, 2009)

http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/DansGuardian-Download-274.html


```
$ md5 dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz 
MD5 (dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz) = 68c8e9a97a3b58d2467a19cb15db5599
$ sha256 dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz 
SHA256 (dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz) = 419be86f472ad0a69a8a15857a646271ac9739d29bd836be9159f2d955e5b963
$ ls -l
512695 Oct  9 00:21 dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ cat /usr/ports/www/dansguardian/distinfo 
MD5 (dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz) = 68c8e9a97a3b58d2467a19cb15db5599
SHA256 (dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz) = 419be86f472ad0a69a8a15857a646271ac9739d29bd836be9159f2d955e5b963
SIZE (dansguardian-2.10.0.3.tar.gz) = 512695
```

This means you can forget about that DG copyright page. You're only bound by GPLv2.

Good luck


----------



## vivek (Oct 9, 2009)

Just install it. The author is against the people who are charging for money to download software from 3rd party website.


----------



## phoenix (Oct 9, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/DansGuardian-Download-274.html
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



Interesting.  Wonder what the Smoothwall people (current devs for DG) would say if that site was brought to their attention?  

The DG devs are nice people.  They all hangout on the DansGuardian group on Yahoo!.  That would be the best place to bring up these kinds of questions.

The history of the copyright page is along the lines that Daniel (original dev) didn't want people freeloading off his work, but he wanted to make it available to non-profits, education, and similar for free.  And he wanted to get other people working on it.  Hence, the restriction on downloading the source.  The source itself is GPL, once you have it, you can do whatever you want.

Things may be different now that the code-base has really split into two (the open-source version, and the SmoothGuardian version).

I put that warning into the port, to allow the port to be used for non-commercial and commercial purposes.  How you get the source is up to you.  Once you have it, the port will compile and install things for you.

Note:  the port is out-of-date, and I no longer maintain it, as we no longer use DG on FreeBSD.


----------



## CodeBlock (Oct 9, 2009)

I find this pretty interesting. I read the copyrights page, and I understand it, but sans bandwidth cost, I see no reason for the restriction. It clearly says that they don't care, if you don't get it from that particular site. So I don't understand the motive behind that restriction. 

Whether or not I use it for commercial use, it's GPL, so why should that make a difference anyway?


----------



## overmind (Oct 9, 2009)

All i know is that person who coded dansguardian works for Smoothwall, a commercial appliance, maybe they do not want competition from other companies (but I might be wrong).


----------



## javatexan (Oct 25, 2009)

What is used in place of Dansguardian these days?

Thanks.




			
				phoenix said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Wonder what the Smoothwall people (current devs for DG) would say if that site was brought to their attention?
> 
> The DG devs are nice people.  They all hangout on the DansGuardian group on Yahoo!.  That would be the best place to bring up these kinds of questions.
> 
> ...


----------



## CodeBlock (Oct 29, 2009)

Squid can probably do a lot of the same things. Haven't tried them together, but I imagine Squid and pf would be harmony


----------

