[Snort-users] license Question
PPowenski at ...9469...
PPowenski at ...9469...
Wed Jul 2 05:22:05 EDT 2003
Has the open source agreement been written by lawyers?
If not could there be problems with it. Are we at the mercy of
From: Jeff Nathan [mailto:jeff at ...950...]
Sent: 02 July 2003 09:40
To: Matt Kettler; Michael Steele; 'Snort'
Subject: RE: [Snort-users] license Question
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I mean no offense toward anyone, but let's leave the legal wrangling and
armchair quarterbacking on the subject of open source licenses to the
The complexities of the topic are best addressed outside the scope of this
- --On Tuesday, July 1, 2003 16:22 -0400 Matt Kettler <mkettler at ...4108...>
> At 05:12 PM 6/30/2003 -0700, Michael Steele wrote:
>> He wants to provide support, so there is nothing he needs to do other
>> then what is required by his local authority on setting up a
>> business. He might want to consider liability insurance, or word it
>> in his support contract that he cannot be held liable for anything
>> out of the support he is providing. This needs to be done by an
>> attorney, and should be part of any support contract.
> Well, he wants to provide INSTALLATION and support. Installation
> constitutes distribution, distributing copies of snort is subject to
> the GPL terms, which really aren't all that unreasonable.
> Heck, technically he could just leave a copy of the source tarball on
> the machines he installed it on and he's fully compliant. I just
> stated the "CD and printed license" as a "best practice"
>> As far as I know you can take Snort and do with it as you want. I see
>> other variants of Snort out there and commercial companies use it all
>> the time in their commercial devices; anything from switches, to full
>> blown IDS devices.
> That part is not true. There are certain limitations on what you can
> do with snort. There's not many, but there are some. For example I
> cannot use code directly from snort in a non-open source product.
> You really should read the license. BSD licenses are generally "do
> whatever, but it's still my copyright", but GPL licenses are "do
> whatever, but it must always remain open source when you're done with
> Snort is GPL licensed, not BSD.
>> Isn't that the beauty of 'Open Source'?
> True, although some OS software is protected against "embrace, extend
> and extinguish" tactics by GPL licenses.
> The relative merits of BSD vs GPL vs other OS type licenses is the
> subject of a great many flame wars, really the only relevant bits here
> are how GPL differs from "do whatever".
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
> Snort-users mailing list
> Snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
> Snort-users list archive:
http://cerberus.sourcefire.com/~jeff (gpg key available)
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
- - Albert Einstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data
Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today
and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
Snort-users mailing list
Snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
Snort-users list archive:
More information about the Snort-users