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.




Network Security Snort-Signatures
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Snort-sigs] STILL no word from Sourcefire about their License Chang

Subject: Re: [Snort-sigs] STILL no word from Sourcefire about their License Changes
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:26:45 -0400
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 17, 2007 14:48:05 +1000 Matt Jonkman
<jonkman@bleedingthreats.net> wrote:

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!

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.


And more importantly, is Victors argument even valid.

IANAL, but I don't believe what sourcefire has done constitutes a license
change. I believe they've separated multiple-license down to a single license
from the original set.

Under the original terms, you had the option of distributing under GPLv2 or any
later version. The "v2 or any other" clause isn't a license itself, it's merely
a declaration of available licenses to choose from. Another key here is it's
"or" not "and" any other version. That part would appear to allow you to
separate and use any of the applicable licenses on its own.

So, Sourcefire appears to have merely chosen the option of distributing that
code under GPLv2. They've not changed the license, they've picked a single
specific license to use from the original files multiple licenses.

This also doesn't appear to prevent any copy of the previously existing code to
be distributed under GPLv3 by Victor, or anyone else.

That said, Sourcefire should at least issue a brief statement on the matter. I
can't put words in their mouth, nor should anyone else.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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>