Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: [Snort-sigs] STILL no word from Sourcefire about their License Changes |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:08:33 -0500 |
I read Victor's blog post. Can you explain what the practical effect of the change is? It would appear that there is something in the GPLv3 license that they don't like.(Mirror from my site post: http://www.bleedingthreats.net/index.php/2007/07/17/still-no-word-from-so urcefire-about-their-license-changes/ )
Victor Julien (co-author of the inline portions of Snort) posted in his blog a while ago about the license changes to Snort that Sourcefire is trying to slip by. They have made a mass change to the Snort code, even that parts they do NOT hold the copyright about.
Victor and myself have asked and blogged about the issue and after weeks have no response from Sourcefire. Victor doesn't want the license on his code changed, and hasn't been able to get a response from Sourcefire.
I personally don't have code in there, but I am concerned at the motivation of this change, as well as the lack of respect for the contributors rights. Victor has put up a new post which puts things very well:
http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.h tml
I echo that sentiment, and add my concerns here:
What is the issue in GPLv3 that Sourcefire is concerned about?
What are Sourcefire's intentions for the future of Snort then?
Why is CVS no longer accessible?
Is it possible to get any response from Sourcefire about this? A lot of us rely on this code, and it's not all owned by sourcefire. If we can't trust Sourcefire to even communicate with us, then I think we need to start thinking about a new home for Snort.
If you want the community's trust, you have to communicate!
-- Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
p7sOkg8fjEJrk.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________ Snort-sigs mailing list Snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Snort-sigs] STILL no word from Sourcefire about their License Changes, Matt Jonkman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Snort-sigs] Bleeding Edge Threats Daily Signature Changes, bleeding |
| Previous by Thread: | [Snort-sigs] STILL no word from Sourcefire about their License Changes, Matt Jonkman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Snort-sigs] STILL no word from Sourcefire about their License Changes, Matt Kettler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |