[Snort-users] Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing

Peter J Manis pmanis at ...5068...
Wed Mar 2 23:07:07 EST 2005

Ok.  Before I get a billion replies bashing me.

1. I sent out my original email before Mary sent out a second email stating 
Snort will alwasy be free.
2. I felt skeptical about the Bleeding Snort digest email I got saying 
Sourcefire contacted Bleeding Snort about creating one source, which is my 
opinion and I am entitled to have it.  A one stop shop is always nice in 
theory, but in practice, I believe it is a good thing to have many sources.
3. I paid out of my own pocket and did attend both the Sourcefire Snort IDS 
and Sourcefire Rules classes.  I think that the extremely expensive prices 
for those classes that I paid should be plenty for me giving back to Marty 
and Sourcefire.  I have the Sourcefire certificates to prove this, and im 
sure my name is in Sourcfire's files as well.
4. I applaud and am grateful for the effort Marty and Sourcefire have 
provided over the years.  The comment about the opensource community being a 
large part of the success of Snort and Sourcefire is a true statement.  It 
was also an echo from an email I recieved from the WinSnort mailing list. 
Eveyone has put time and effort into Snort.
5. My intention for speaking is just to point out the bads in what this 
licensing venture can create.  I am neither trying to defame Sourcefire nor 
Marty.  I think Marty is an individual to be envied and appreciated.
However, people need to understand that Sourcefire in itself may or may not 
have a conflict of interest because it is indeed a firm trying to make a 
profit.  What is in the best interest for Sourcefire may not necessarily be 
the best interest of the opensource community.  And I say once again, I am 
NOT taking one side or the other, just pointing out possible problems.  I 
appolige if I offended anyone in my previous email if the message in my 
previous email was a little strong.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Schmehl" <pauls at ...6838...>
To: "'Snort Users Postings'" <snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Snort-users] Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter J Manis" <pmanis at ...5068...>
> To: <spamtrap at ...9077...>; "'Snort Users Postings'" 
> <snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Snort-users] Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing
>>I agree.  This is sad.  Essentially, what is happening here is taking the 
>>open out of the opensource.
> Don't be silly.
> Have you ever given any thought to what open source means?  It means that 
> you get to use, for free, something that someone else has spent time and 
> effort and expertise on, with no compensation other than the pleasure of 
> knowing that it benefits you and others.
>>  First the rules from Sourcefire, and now they are trying to take 
>> Bleeding Snort.
> And you think this because?
>>  I understand if Sourcefire is upset about a few individuals using their 
>> rules, but what business do they have attempting to take Bleeding Snort 
>> under their control?  This is clearly a coorporation hoax to monopolize 
>> the development of Snort rules, first by licensing the Sourcefire rules, 
>> and now trying to get Bleeding Snort to abide by their licenses!
> Please!  Save the dramatics for theatre class.
>>  Next will be Snort itself!
> Really?  Marty reaffirmed Sourcefire's support for snort *and* the rules 
> in an earlier post today.  The only thing that's changed is that you get 
> the rules for free after a brief delay.  If you want them immediately, 
> write your own, pay for theirs or find them on the internet.  (It's not 
> like it's that hard.)
>>  The end result will be the destruction of Snort in the opensource 
>> community.  And I totally agree with the fact that if not for the 
>> opensource community Snort or Sourcefire would not be what it is today 
>> and to put any kind of a license on it is contradictory to its pricipal 
>> founding.
> Snort wouldn't be were it is today if Marty et. al. hadn't put untold 
> hours and millions of dollars into its development.  If you don't think 
> they deserve compensation for that, then I would ask you, when you 
> graduate, to work for free and see how long it takes for your opinion to 
> change.
> A laborer is worthy of his hire.  Never forget that.
>>  This is at least my opinion of the situation.
> Opinions are OK, but they should be based on fact, not speculation and 
> innuendo.
> Please do us all a favor and trim your replies.
> Paul Schmehl (pauls at ...6838...)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> University of Texas at Dallas
> AVIEN Founding Member
> http://www.utdallas.edu/
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Snort-users mailing list
> Snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users
> Snort-users list archive:
> http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users 

More information about the Snort-users mailing list