@Suiseiseki

> The idea here is to prevent companies from using open source Nmap in their proprietary software or appliances. Some have in the past distributed Nmap executables as part of expensive proprietary products and refused to make the source available, claiming a loophole based on strange interpretations of the GPL definition of derivative and collective works. If companies take value from Nmap, they need to contribute back to the project and the open source community by either making their product/project compatible open source or buying a commercial license.

Tell me how does this rationale make any sense given GPL is precisely intended to avoid such scenarios being a thing. Their problem is lack of lawyers to bring this to court, not a bullshit interpretation of a license.