"Promotion" here has a specific meaning, at least in the US. > And maybe(?) most relevant it says you cannot use the name Wintun to promote your own software, which seems potentially almost opposite of this claim of violation. This is equivalent in proprietary licenses, where it says that the software is licensed to you but its IP is not transferred. This is to enforce GPL2 in other scenarios. They can distribute the software as-is (if using this license), but they cannot adjust the restrictions to a more permissive software (say, BSD or MIT license). > It says no redistributing the “rights of the Software” which is different than using the Software directly. The license in itself doesn't say that, but the header to link to the DLL is dual-licensed under GPL and 3-BSD (note that the rest of WinTun is solely GPL), and all BSD variants requires notices (even if it is in an About section). > Section 3 “RESTRICTIONS” does say no removing of proprietary notices, labels or copyrights - is that the problem? Most of the embedded dependencies are from 2018, and subject to documented vulnerabilities: Wintun.dll, from the Wintun project, without mentioning it, thus violating its license. Worse, they're using a possessive voice when talking about the servers (that are Mullvad's) and the code (mostly Wintun and wireguard-windows amongst other, to which they didn't contribute back a single line of code.ħz.dll from 2018, licensed under LGPL, and some parts under BSD, violating this license. Mullvad highlighting the fact that Malwareware bytes is using their network:Įxcept that Malwarebytes Privacy is just some paint on top of Mullvad and various open-source tools, which would be a parasitic albeit fine behaviour if this was clearly disclosed (as Mullvad is (amusingly) doing on its website), but there is no mention of this whatsoever on Malwarebytes' one.
0 kommentar(er)
