[Snort-users] Semi-OT: GPL and Snort--Was Cost of Vanilla Snort

Erek Adams erek at ...577...
Tue May 7 14:24:02 EDT 2002

Note:  I _DO NOT_ work for Sourcefire.  I'm just a longtime (l)user of snort.
:)  I am also _NOT_ a lawyer.

On Tue, 7 May 2002, Glenn Larsson wrote:

> No no. What i was thinking about was if i could install snort on a box,
> sell that box to customer X for self cost, then charge that customer for
> monitoring his/her network on a monthly basis.

*sigh*  For various personal reasons, this makes that little vein above my
right eye twitch.  Out of respect for the list, I'll leave it at that.

> From the responses i recieved, it looks like i can do that. I just
> wanted to know if the original author(s) wanted anything or not for me
> using it as a monitoring tool, which would be classified as "for
> commercial use". I'm a developer myself so i hate it when people don't
> pay for stuff i've written (unless i've released it as "free stuff").

Please see:	http://www.sourcefire.com/about/about_faq.htm#4


If you're considering something released under GPL as 'free stuff', I'd
suggest you go back and re-read the GPL.  As it's stated, it's 'free speech'
and not 'free beer'.  Basically, unless I've misunderstood things from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html and other pages, it works like this:
If you modify and or change the code in any way, that's cool--as long as that
code stays "in-house".  If that ever goes to the public, or is 'sold' you are
required to 'give your changes back to the community'.  Now there are many
other nuances to the license, but these cover the points I'm trying to make.


Anyways, just remember--a lot of effort, spit and baling wire went into snort
to make it is what it is today.  We, the OpenSource Community, should be more
aware of that.


Erek Adams

More information about the Snort-users mailing list