[Nagiosplug-devel] [OT] Nagios plugins in use with UP.Time possibly?

[Ethan Galstad]

On 10 Mar 2004 at 23:33, Ton Voon wrote:

> 
> On 10 Mar, 2004, at 12:16, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:24:55 -0000
> > "AJ McKee" <aj.mckee at nmtbmedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To cut to the chase there is a directory called libexec in
> >> /opt/SPYNuptm/ and its contents are similar if not identical to
> >> that of nagios.
> >>
> >> So basically I was wondering what was everyone's thoughts etc on
> >> this?
> >
> > We're not happy about it, and will take it up with them
> >
> 
> Sorry, I need to get this off my chest.
> 
> I'm really pissed off about this. I've downloaded an evaluation copy
> of the up.time software from Uptime Software and taken a look at it.
> It includes Apache, PHP and Mysql. The first two have their own
> licences which basically say you can redistribute source or binary but
> you must include their licence, which Uptime have failed to do. Mysql
> is distributed under the GPL which Uptime are also violating.
> 
> But the real story is with the Nagios parts. They have taken the
> Nagios product, compiled it and distributed the nagios executable
> under the name of servmon. I know that it is really Nagios because the
> executable contains various lines that are very Nagios specific such
> as ENABLE_PASSIVE_SVC_CHECKS. The plugins have had all the copyrights
> removed. The agent software has been renamed to uptmagnt, but contains
> many lines with the string "netsaint" in it. It even says to "Send
> email to netsaint-users at lists.sourceforge.net if you have questions"!
> 
> This is a shame. They have some very interesting reporting graphs and
> performance information (I wonder how they do that?), but the lack of
> acknowledgement to the work of everyone involved with Nagios (as well
> as the other open source software) is very demeaning. At least they
> didn't rename Apache and Mysql!
> 
> I have written an email to FSF for advice on next steps. The copyright
> holders (the Nagios plugins team and Ethan Galstad) are the only ones
> empowered to act against violations, but I, for one, intend to get
> Uptime Software to comply to the GPL.
> 
> Ton

Nice.  This kind of stuff can make you want to throw up when you find 
out about it.  I almost feel sorry for them with having NetSaint used 
as part of their backend.  I said *almost*...  What a bunch of dorks. 
 If you are going to plagiarize, you should at least make a decent 
attempt to strip out or change any strings that might implicate you.

I haven't downloaded their demo yet, but their download agreement 
states that their software:

	..."contains trade secrets of uptime software and to protect them 
you may not de-compile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise 
reduce the Software to a human perceivable form."  

I suppose that means they could sick the DMCA on you for running 
"strings" against the executables they release, unless you could 
prove in court that they are in violation of copyright.  I'm joking 
about the DMCA thing, but sadly, its probably partially true.

Funny thing... about a month or so ago I woke up one morning and for 
some reason felt an overwhelming need to officially register NetSaint 
and Nagios with the U.S. Copyright Office.  Not sure why I felt the 
urgent need to do that (I never really cared about it prior to this), 
but the registrations for the first four versions of NetSaint are 
sitting in the offsite mail processing site in D.C. on their way to 
the Copyright Office at this moment.  Good timing I guess.  I read 
after submitting the registrations that registering a work without 5 
years of its release date shows prima facie (sp?) in a court of law.  
That's a good thing - and NetSaint 0.0.1 was released on March 19, 
1999, so the deadline would have been missed had I not woken from a 
some kind of nightmare.  BTW, for those who aren't aware, you cannot 
file a copyright violation suit in court without first having 
officially registered it with the Copyright Office. 

The plugins were split off from the main NetSaint distribution and 
made into a separate project after Netsaint 0.0.3, so separate 
registrations will have to be made for plugin releases.  I'd be happy 
to cover the cost of the registrations, but I think we should first 
consult with the FSF as to what the best way to do this would be.  We 
could either retain the copyright registrations as a team or assign 
them to the FSF.  Having the FSF behind us would be good thing, as it 
means time and resources that we as individual developers don't 
necessarily have.

Ton - since you have already contacted the FSF, can you keep us 
informed of their response?  I'll also make a separate request to the 
FSF tonight in regards to what the best way to register the 
copyrights would be.

Anyway, don't let this make you too sick to your stomach.  This is a 
good thing, in a messed up kind of way.  If it turns out to be true, 
it would mean that:

	1.  A commercial product is successfully using NetSaint and the 
plugins as its backend.
	2.  Some of their nice SQL and front-end stuff may have to be 
released back to us if they're violating the GPL.

So its not all bad.  Its more of an education than anything, even if 
it is a big hassle.  I did learn a lot about trademarks after 
NetSaint. :-)  As a side, I've always wondered whether or not we 
should be seeking some blatantly obvious patents to protect this 
project from the all-too-happy-to-sue-for-obvious-patents-being-
awarded-them companies.  I suppose I should knock on wood for that.  
We don't want to go there...



Ethan Galstad,
Nagios Developer
---
Email: nagios at nagios.org
Website: http://www.nagios.org