Comments on: Snort license changes revisited http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html Everything inline. Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:39:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: breviary stuff http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-11048 breviary stuff Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:54:21 +0000 http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-11048 <strong>Claws Mail, ClamAV™, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv3+, and the ClamAV™ Plugin...</strong> Since the Claws Mail ClamAV™ plugin was dropped there have been several comments made in several places; Naturally enough, people have been confused over the incompatibilities of GPLv3 and GPLv2 — some thought it would be possible to simply... Claws Mail, ClamAV™, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv3+, and the ClamAV™ Plugin…

Since the Claws Mail ClamAV™ plugin was dropped there have been several comments made in several places; Naturally enough, people have been confused over the incompatibilities of GPLv3 and GPLv2 — some thought it would be possible to simply…

]]> By: VictorJ http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5704 VictorJ Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:30:33 +0000 http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5704 <p>Jason, it's true that the GPLv3 didn't exist until June 29th, but I'm not so sure this matters much. Until at least Snort 2.6.1.5 the license language both in the source code and on the site stated that Snort was distributed under the GPLv2, but that you are allowed to distribute and modify it also under <strong>any</strong> newer version of the license, at your option. There is no limitation to only currently released newer versions of the license, in which case the release date of the GPLv3 would become important.</p> <p>Since there was no newer version of the license available all the years Sourcefire used this license language what point was there to have the language in the first place, other than giving you the right to use the newer license as soon it would become available?</p> Jason, it’s true that the GPLv3 didn’t exist until June 29th, but I’m not so sure this matters much. Until at least Snort 2.6.1.5 the license language both in the source code and on the site stated that Snort was distributed under the GPLv2, but that you are allowed to distribute and modify it also under any newer version of the license, at your option. There is no limitation to only currently released newer versions of the license, in which case the release date of the GPLv3 would become important.

Since there was no newer version of the license available all the years Sourcefire used this license language what point was there to have the language in the first place, other than giving you the right to use the newer license as soon it would become available?

]]> By: Snort User http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5659 Snort User Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:02:37 +0000 http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5659 The community is being destroyed for Snort by SF. Wether this is intentional or not Im still not sure. People origianally contributed code, bugs, and rules assuming this would always be under the GPL. First rules changed, while technically legal and probably even justifiable it still irk'd a lot of people and a lot of people left Snort. Now we have license changes where there are 3 different license versions that can be applied to Snort. And its pretty clear that the modifications to the Snort 3.0 license are purely for Sourcefires benefit and alter the meaning of open source. Its making everything confusing and people are starting to run scared that the license will change further. I think someone should really start considering forking Snort and form a solid community where the original thoughts of open source and GPL should apply or eventually Snort will become 'Open Sourcefire'. Snort Inline and Bleeding Edge have a solid following around the Snort community and should be the pioneers of this movement. The community is being destroyed for Snort by SF. Wether this is intentional or not Im still not sure.

People origianally contributed code, bugs, and rules assuming this would always be under the GPL. First rules changed, while technically legal and probably even justifiable it still irk’d a lot of people and a lot of people left Snort. Now we have license changes where there are 3 different license versions that can be applied to Snort. And its pretty clear that the modifications to the Snort 3.0 license are purely for Sourcefires benefit and alter the meaning of open source. Its making everything confusing and people are starting to run scared that the license will change further.

I think someone should really start considering forking Snort and form a solid community where the original thoughts of open source and GPL should apply or eventually Snort will become ‘Open Sourcefire’. Snort Inline and Bleeding Edge have a solid following around the Snort community and should be the pioneers of this movement.

]]> By: Jason http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5657 Jason Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:45:30 +0000 http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5657 The practical effect of the license change is almost none. The GPLv3 didn't exist (officially) until June 29, so Snort was under the GPLv2 until then. There recent change is just to keep it under the GPLv2 and not automatically be usable under the GPLv3. The issue here is they applied the change to files that are not owned by Sourcefire, which I believe to be a violation of the GPL. Victor and Will should be pissed, along with anyone else that has contributed to Snort - unless of course they agree that the code should remain GPLv2 only. Personally, if I had any GPL software I'd probably lock it to v2 as well, but I have full respect for any authors choice of license. The practical effect of the license change is almost none. The GPLv3 didn’t exist (officially) until June 29, so Snort was under the GPLv2 until then. There recent change is just to keep it under the GPLv2 and not automatically be usable under the GPLv3.

The issue here is they applied the change to files that are not owned by Sourcefire, which I believe to be a violation of the GPL. Victor and Will should be pissed, along with anyone else that has contributed to Snort - unless of course they agree that the code should remain GPLv2 only.

Personally, if I had any GPL software I’d probably lock it to v2 as well, but I have full respect for any authors choice of license.

]]> By: Paul Schmehl http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5649 Paul Schmehl Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:07:12 +0000 http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5649 What's the practical effect of the change? What’s the practical effect of the change?

]]> By: Bleeding Edge Threats http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5642 Bleeding Edge Threats Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:43:34 +0000 http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html#comment-5642 [...] http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html [...] [...] http://www.inliniac.net/blog/2007/07/16/snort-license-changes-revisited.html [...]

]]>