AW: Re: [Nagios-users] Nagios 3.0,natively windows codes,support mysql,support agentless monitor , new web interface,more,Greatly

[Andreas Ericsson]

Thomas Mitchell wrote:
> Hello
> 
> The Main Problem I see with OP5 that the software they sale. Nagios / Cacti / 
> NTOP is not mention in there website or there brochures.



I didn't know that it wasn't. I'll point it out to the marketing people 
and ask them to put it there. However 
http://www.zickrubin.com/really_2.htm seems to suggest that it might be 
illegal to use a trademarked name, while 
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp23.htm seems to suggest that it's 
required. I'm no expert, so I'll tell the fellas with money to pay those 
who are and sort it out.

> even the screen shots 
> seems like the logos has been stripped( source code changed?).


We provide a different menu and front-page for the GUI. None of the html 
is linked with any GPL'd code, so that's quite alright in itself. As for 
modifying the source, we change a couple of error-messages in the CGI's. 
  All the other fixes are submitted back to Ethan. Those changes are 
very platform specific and refer to proprietary programs that can 
auto-fix some of the problems users might experience. If anyone's 
interested I'll post the patch (although it will be completely useless 
and downright wrong for anyone who doesn't run Nagios on our specific 
platform).

Prototypes for some of the programs are available at 
http://oss.op5.se/nagios and might be of help to some people. Don't 
email me if they fuck things up or erase everything on your harddrive or 
some such.

> so its very similiar to saker soft case.


Not in the slightest. Saker-soft took nagios and added a whole bunch of 
modifications (in-core checks, for one thing) and are selling the GPL'd 
code as proprietary software. We're packaging the Nagios core alongside 
a lot of other applications, but we're very careful about not changing 
any of the GPL'd code in an "invasive" way (apart from bugfixes, which I 
submit back to Ethan, who usually applies them). Non-invasive in this 
case means the changes discussed above.

> since original code has been altered. i know there 
> is an organization who deals with those kind of problems called "GPL 
> Violations" and can be located at http://gpl-violations.org/
> there is also another company called IT Ground Work which also provides 
> solutions based on Nagios. but in there case seems like they did everything 
> right. they specify that nagios engine as been used.


So apart from what we do the only difference is that they mention Nagios 
on their website then.

> and only new proprietary web interface.

Exactly as we do it.

> the configuration web interface they provide to download as GPL.

Our webconfig gui is not GPL'd, but it doesn't use any GPL'd code, so 
that's not a license violation.

> WMI plugins as GPL and more.
> 


Our GPL'd stuff is at http://oss.op5.se/nagios. The plugin package there 
is a fair bit more portable than the official one (although the build 
will break at check_dhcp, so use the -i flag to make). We don't deal in 
WMI plugins, but if we did we'd probably make those GPL too (or some 
open BSD'ish license). Publicly releasing sourcecode for traditionally 
proprietary applications is a great way of getting free testing and 
feedback while the testers and backfeeders (??) gain from the situation 
as well. It's a win-win situation really.

> as far as i know. selling proffesional services under nagios with pre compiled 
> unmodified binaries and source included is allowed.
> 

It's explicitly allowed, so no problems there.

> The case of shipping proprietary software with unmodified GPL software is also 
> allowed. as long as you provide the trademarks, Author Info and the GPL license 
> agreement and of course the source code of the GPL if anything has been 
> modified.


Even if nothing has been modified, really. There are a couple of 
pitfalls though.
We're only required to make it accessible through the same medium (CD, 
downloadable, pre-installed on the server).
We may charge money for providing the software.
We may NOT charge extra money for providing the source-code to the binaries.


> This form of distributionshas been done by several companies like: 
> ORACLE, Redhat, Funk and others.
> 

Including IT Groundwork and OP5, but not saker-soft.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson at op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Lead Developer


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf