> To avoid misunderstandings, we consider an application to constitute a
> derivative work for the purpose of this license if it does any of
> the following:
> Integrates source code from Nmap
> Reads or includes Nmap copyrighted data files, such as nmap-os-db or
> Executes Nmap and parses the results (as opposed to typical shell or
> execution-menu apps, which simply display raw Nmap output and so are not
> derivative works.)
> Integrates/includes/aggregates Nmap into a proprietary executable
> installer, such as those produced by InstallShield.
> Links to a library or executes a program that does any of the above.
I mean technically, when you run nmap on Windows, the Windows kernel is loading the nmap binary, which is an nmap-copyrighted file, and executing that binary. "Parsing the results" is a poorly defined term, but it seems clear that there is a back and forth flow of data between the kernel and nmap. Does that mean using nmap on Windows in the first place is a copyright violation? Or if you run nmap in a non-GPLv2 shell and pipe it to grep, is that a license violation? Also, arguably this is an "additional restriction" which the GPL forbids.
I don't think it's even possible to redefine what a "derived work" is inside your license. Isn't that a fundamental part of copyright law, defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101?
These guys sure do know security inside and out, but I'm not optimistic about how well this particular license would hold up in court.
The trademark violation, on the other hand, seems a lot more clear-cut. They should just enforce their trademark. Of course, then Debian will declare it non-free and come out with IceWeaselMap... but that's ok :)