I had the same problem but using google foo I was able to find the page. The page is obviously outdated but that really isn't the point, I don't think. I think the point is that they're software isn't GPL even though the very foundation of what they distribute, is.
He's not asking them to give him anything, he's asking them to comply with the GPL which states software that imbeds GPL code must also be released under the GPL. That is the essence of the GPL. The GPL was designed to fork. GPL software can be sold. It just can't be re-distributed under a different license.
At least someone gets the point. He's not asking for the code, he's citing that their code must be redistributed under the GPL and that their customers are probably aware of this. Certainly the can charge for the software they create, as they probably should after spending $20 million as they indicate on their website. However, they can't change the license from GPL to proprietary. Read the reference he provides.
There are comments on this discussion about sales folks selling software, not engineers. That is true and Cittio sales folks can and should articulate the value if the software provides the benefits they claim. They just can't change the license, is all. Which means they have to comply with the GPL and inform their customers and provide the source.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably a bit of sour grapes, yes, but if you read the GPL reference, the issue is the license under which Watch Tower is be sold isn't GPL.
I had the same problem but using google foo I was able to find the page. The page is obviously outdated but that really isn't the point, I don't think. I think the point is that they're software isn't GPL even though the very foundation of what they distribute, is.
He's not asking them to give him anything, he's asking them to comply with the GPL which states software that imbeds GPL code must also be released under the GPL. That is the essence of the GPL. The GPL was designed to fork. GPL software can be sold. It just can't be re-distributed under a different license.
At least someone gets the point. He's not asking for the code, he's citing that their code must be redistributed under the GPL and that their customers are probably aware of this. Certainly the can charge for the software they create, as they probably should after spending $20 million as they indicate on their website. However, they can't change the license from GPL to proprietary. Read the reference he provides.
There are comments on this discussion about sales folks selling software, not engineers. That is true and Cittio sales folks can and should articulate the value if the software provides the benefits they claim. They just can't change the license, is all. Which means they have to comply with the GPL and inform their customers and provide the source.
No. OpenNMS only supports the F and P in the FCAPS model at this time.