[Snort-users] [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort's license?

Alan Shimel alan at ...13458...
Thu Jul 19 09:20:28 EDT 2007

Hopefully this will not bounce, as I registered this email address on
the list.


With all of the back and forth regarding these issues I would like to
invite Marty, Matt Jonkman, Victor and maybe some of the other folks who
have written to appear on my podcast that I do weekly.  We can do it
with either with live call ins for questions or have people submit their
questions.  I think it will be a great chance to clear the air and give
everyone their say and then hopefully put these issues to bed once and
for all.  Marty, Matt, Victor, et al, what do you say?  Would you be
willing to get on a panel and discuss these issues?


Let me know




Alan Shimel
Chief Strategy Officer

O 303.381.3815
C 516.857.7409
F 303.381.3881



The information transmitted is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential material.
Review or other use of this information by persons other than
the intended recipient is prohibited. If you've received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete
from any computer. 


From: snort-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:snort-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:48 PM
To: Martin Roesch; Snort Users
Cc: Bleeding Sigs
Subject: [Snort-users] [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort's


Appreciate the reply Marty. I'm the person who said you'd slipped this
in on 
a Friday before a long weekend. I mentioned that because that's what 
happened the last time SF did something and then didn't communicate with
community for weeks afterwards. 3.0 license release I think it was
maybe? I 
forget. But had someone mentioned that you had to do this in a rush
of outside factors we'd have known different.... 

And that time, and the time before, (and probably the time before that
you said SF was in the wrong by not putting out a note that something
changing right away, or even that you had to do something and would be 
explaining it shortly. When SF goes into a communication blackout it's
obvious. The "I'm too busy" thing frankly doesn't sound plausible. Over
weeks is more than enough time for anyone to send out an email that says

"We're aware of the situation, we'll update you shortly". If you were 
spending the time waiting for legal review then say so. And let us know
front that's what we're waiting for. Otherwise you just foment the 
conspiracy theories and undermine the corporate confidence that snort
remain stable and community oriented. But I think we've had this 
conversation before, so I won't beat the dead horse any longer. 

I haven't a problem with you protecting code and your rights, but the 
willy-nilly changing of others copyright is not something that should
by accident. That's not like changing the colors on a website, that's
ground. Rushing through that was a huge hit to trust. 

So my questions: 

Will the coders that have more than trivial portions of code in snort be

receiving a proportional chunk of the money you make when on relicensing

Snort under the commercial license? Future and historical contracts?
seems a fair thing to do, unless you intend to buy out their copyright? 
That'd be fair as well. But in protecting the authors of Snort (yourself
others), you've got to consider all of them when the money flows. 

If they're not to be reimbursed under your relicensing revenue, do they
also have the right to sell snort under a commercial license of their

Why's CVS down still? Why was it down in the first place? 

Have you had the time now to identify exactly what issues in GPLv3 are
issue for SF? I've seen talk of the patent prohibition stuff as being a 
possible issue. Is that what's a concern for SF? 

To be clear: I do appreciate your stewardship of Snort. Better
would not put so many into a default hostile and suspicious stance. 



> -----Original Message----- 
> From: snort-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net 
> [mailto:snort-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf 
> Of Martin Roesch 
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:49 AM 
> To: Snort Users 
> Subject: [Snort-users] What's up with Snort's license? 
> Hash: SHA1 
> Hi everyone, 
> I posted this message on my blog a few minutes ago, please read it  
> and let me know what you think if you're interested in Snort  
> licensing issues. 
> - -- 
> There have been a lot of questions and speculation about the things  
> we (Sourcefire) have been changing in Snort's licensing recently and  
> it needs to be addressed so that we can clear the air. 
> There are three things that people have been asking questions about  
> or having issues with. 
> 1) GPL v2 lock that we put in place on June 29th. 
> 2) "Clarifications" in Snort's license language (Snort 3.0). 
> 3) "Clarifications" with regard to assignments of ownership for  
> contributed code (Snort 3.0). 
> Let me address these issues in order. 
> 1) GPL v2 lock. 
> Here's what happened. About 3 weeks ago I got a heads up that under  
> GPL v2, a licensee can choose to use GPL v3 if we don't specify what  
> version of the GPL to use; conceivably we could have people forking  
> and changing license on us. Seeing as GPL v3 didn't even 
> "ship" until  
> June 29th we didn't feel like we were going to be able to make any  
> decision on the language that was contained in the new version until  
> we'd had some time to perform a formal legal review. It also didn't  
> help that they decided to release on the last day of the quarter.  
> Another contributing factor to the decision for me was that Linus  
> decided to keep the Linux kernel at GPL v2, that in itself 
> was enough  
> to get me to hit the pause button and take some serious time  
> reviewing this new license before making any decision. Linus himself  
> said "I'm not arguing against the GPLv3. I'm arguing that the GPLv3  
> is wrong for _me_, and it's not the license I ever chose." It's not  
> the license we chose either and we're not moving to it without a  
> conscious decision to do so. 
> If we didn't want the code base moving to the new version then what  
> could we do? The simplest thing given the time constraints that we  
> were working within was just to change the language in the source  
> file header preambles (and not the license itself) noting that we  
> were specifying Snort at GPL version 2 until we could make a solid  
> and informed decision about how we wanted to treat GPL v3. 
> For those of you with wholly contributed source files where the file  
> headers were changed, many (most/all?) of them referred to "the  
> program" as being under an indistinct version number (not just your  
> source files) and so rather than try to track everyone down in the  
> time frame we had to work with *I* made a unilateral decision 
> to just  
> move forward with it and we'd clean up the mess afterwards. 
> I'm sorry  
> for the "bull in the china shop" routine but we felt like we needed  
> to have this language out there before GPL v3 shipped at noon EDT on  
> June 29th. Clearly there were some mistakes made, obviously we  
> shouldn't have changed things like the BSD license on the 
> strl* files  
> and so on, we'll fix that too. As Victor observed, this was done in  
> something of a hurry. BTW, we didn't try to "slip it out on a 
> Friday"  
> per the note on some blog, Friday was the deadline and we had to move.

> Where do we go from here? We're going to examine the language in the  
> new license and decide if we want to move forward with it. This is  
> going to take a while but we'll make an announcement when we 
> make the  
> final decision. For those of you who have wholly authored source  
> files that would like the language changed for your source 
> files back  
> to the original, with the provision that the language reflect that  
> you're just referring to your file and not the entirety of the  
> program, just let us (me) know and send us the verbage you want and  
> we'll make the change. For those of you who object to this sort of  
> thing all together that would like to maintain your code as an  
> external patch set for Snort instead of in the main source 
> tree, give  
> us the heads up and we'll pull your code from the source trees. Once  
> again, this is with the provision that we may reimplement the  
> capabilities that your code offers as Sourcefire-authored code if it  
> happens to be something that we consider important to the project. 
> If anyone has any other input I'd be happy to hear it. Contrary to  
> what several groups with vested interests seem to be promoting,  
> Sourcefire isn't interested in closing Snort's source code or making  
> this a closed-source project. The community continues to be 
> important  
> to us and we have no plans on that ever changing. 
> 2) Snort 3.0 "clarifications" and the GPL 
> There has been a fair amount of opinion being put forth by people in  
> the blogging world that Snort 3.0 will no longer be "open 
> source" due  
> to the clarifications that we put in place. This is just plain wrong. 
> Sourcefire produces Snort as an open source project. My interest as  
> the guy who started this whole thing and who has worked on and  
> advanced this project for closing in on 9 years now has always been  
> how good we can make the technology and how well we can serve the  
> needs of the community. Now that Snort has my company behind it, the  
> priorities really haven't changed but there's an interesting dynamic  
> out there with companies that are using Snort as a part of their  
> product or service offering. Many of them seem to expect us to work  
> on this technology and improve it continuously so that their 
> offering  
> is cutting edge but contribute nothing to the project and complain  
> bitterly whenever we do something that might cost them some money to  
> continue to use a best-of-breed technology like this. 
> It's Free as in "Free Speech", not Free as in "Free Money" people!  
> Companies that use Snort as part of a service or product seem to be  
> having a tough time accepting this. The goal of the new licensing  
> language is to define what we consider to constitute 
> conditions under  
> which something built on or around Snort is a derivative work 
> subject  
> to the stipulations of the GPL (i.e. putting the derivative code  
> under the GPL license). Despite all the gnashing of teeth that has  
> resulted from this clarification, what we've really done is take  
> about the most "open" stance you can with a GPL project and put it  
> out there, true open source champions should be applauding us 
> for our  
> position. 
> That didn't happen. Instead we've gotten a litany of grousing from  
> the blogerati, primarily because we've offered a commercial license  
> for people who don't want to play by the rules of the GPL in their  
> product and service offerings that will (*gasp*!) cost money. If  
> you're licensing technology from Sourcefire (which all of you using  
> the GPL version of Snort are doing) and you don't wish to live under  
> the terms of that license, we're giving you another one to choose  
> from. If you don't like having world-class security technology  
> available for a fee because it affects your cost structure, that's  
> not my problem. If you want to use it for free then you have to live  
> by the license but people always seem to interpret the GPL in ways  
> that are optimally advantageous to them (if they don't just take the  
> code directly and bury it in their product). The clarifications we  
> put into Snort 3 are there to get us all on the same page and 
> to make  
> sure that commercial users of the technology understand that we're  
> not a "venture technology" company, giving them technology for free  
> to enable their business models which frequently compete against us  
> in some regard. There's nothing wrong with using Snort as a part of  
> your commercial offering as long as you adhere to its 
> license. If you  
> can't do that then we need to talk. 
> At the same time we've taken many measures to ensure that the end  
> users of the technology are unaffected. Want to integrate Snort or  
> part of Snort into your open source project? No problem, it's free.  
> Want to deploy 100 home-made Snort sensors in your non-profit/ 
> enterprise/government organization ? Go for it. Want to learn how  
> these systems work at the code level? No problem, it's all there.  
> Want transparency of your security technology and the content that  
> drives it? It's all there, as it should be. Want to have access to  
> the internals to extend or correct or add your own value to the  
> project or just your operational environment? All part of the open  
> source concept, make it happen. Want to fork and make your own IPS  
> project built on the code-base? You can do that, just make sure you  
> understand what you're doing in maintaining proper licensing for the  
> forked project and respect our IP. 
> I personally have *always* been the biggest advocate for the 
> users of  
> Snort since the day this company was formed and I always will be. 
> 3) Snort 3.0 and IP assignments 
> This is the most controversial provision of the clarifications that  
> we put into the Snort 3.0 license. Basically what it says is: 
> * By sending these changes to Sourcefire or one of the Sourcefire- 
> moderated 
> * mailing lists or forums, you are granting to Sourcefire, Inc. the  
> unlimited, 
> * perpetual, non-exclusive right to reuse, modify, and/or relicense  
> the code. 
> * Snort will always be available Open Source, but this is important 
> * because the inability to relicense code has caused devastating  
> problems for 
> * other Free Software projects (such as KDE and NASM). We also  
> occasionally 
> * relicense the code to third parties as discussed above. If 
> you wish to 
> * specify special license conditions of your contributions, just say  
> so when 
> * you send them. 
> So what's that mean? If you send a patch to the mailing lists or to  
> Sourcefire, if you contribute code to the Snort project we consider  
> that code and it's IP to be "assigned" to us. The reason for doing  
> this should be pretty clear, we don't feel that contributing 
> a 3-line  
> patch to a 200k+ LOC codebase means that the contributer has  
> copyright claims over Snort at that point. In the early years there  
> were many people who contributed (in any way) to Snort but over the  
> years since Sourcefire was incorporated the total contribution by  
> these external contributers has decreased substantially. After that,  
> Sourcefire developed more and more of the code, especially the core  
> functionality of the detection engine and preprocessors, not to  
> mention tons of the rules as well. I have felt for a long time that  
> we need to have a sense of proportionality about this and we should  
> also have the ability to be flexible with the code base in terms of  
> licensing without needing to approach every contributer individually  
> to get sign-off on any changes that we make. That's why we've put  
> this provision into Snort 3.0. 
> This "assumptive assignment" is exactly what projects like Nmap use.  
> Perhaps we should take the next step and use the FSF's model where  
> contributers to projects like GCC need to sign a legal document  
> explicitly to contribute to the project. The FSF does this because  
> they need to have flexibility but also because they need to get out  
> from under any potential problems that may occur due to someone  
> inappropriately contributing IP from a 3rd party. I don't like that  
> concept because of the overhead associated with interacting with the  
> project, Snort's not a huge project like GCC so I've liked that  
> people can contribute as they see fit. The FSF does take one  
> additional step, they guarantee that the projects that people make  
> assignments to will be available as open source projects in  
> perpetuity. I think that maybe we need to make a statement like that  
> but quite frankly it's always been our position that Snort will  
> always be available as Free Software and we have no intention to  
> change our position ever. 
> I think that the part of this provision that people have had 
> the most  
> trouble with is that we also retain the right to relicense the  
> contributed code under alternative licenses. We have to be 
> able to do  
> that if we're going to offer alternative licenses to Snort,  
> maintaining a "patch free" code branch and a "patch tainted" branch  
> doesn't make any sense to me and probably not to you either. The  
> assignment doesn't mean we're going to "steal" your code and  
> "disappear" it CIA-style. It means that we need to be able to retain  
> the right to offer it under our commercial license. The code you  
> contribute will always be available to you and everyone else in the  
> open source code base, we're not going to steal it but we are going  
> to make it available to our commercial users. If you've got a 
> problem  
> with this, don't contribute the code to us, maintain it as an  
> external patch. 
> That's about it. I'm sorry we haven't been as communicative with the  
> OSS community as we probably should be, I personally have a lot of  
> demands on my time and I'm the person at SF who's the most familiar  
> with the totality of the Snort project so I have a lot of input into  
> the process here and I'm also fairly parochial regarding  
> communicating concepts like this to the user community. In 
> the future  
> I'll try to be more forthcoming with all of you and I hope you'll  
> continue to be patient with both me and Sourcefire; our 
> hearts really  
> are in the right place with the users of this technology but we also  
> have to be pragmatic about how all of this is going to work 
> given all  
> of the commercial use that Snort sees. 
> We're trying to be pragmatic about these issues, I hope that people  
> can feel comfortable with the direction that we're taking things. I  
> look forward to reading people's responses. 
>       -Marty 
> - -- 
> Martin Roesch - Founder/CTO, Sourcefire Inc. - +1-410-290-1616 
> Sourcefire - Security for the Real World - http://www.sourcefire.com 
> Snort: Open Source IDP - http://www.snort.org 
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) 
> kqjs5CsDqD8cQhP2LA9hUpM= 
> =BWUO 
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----------- 
> 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-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 

Bleeding-sigs mailing list 
Bleeding-sigs at ...14019... 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.9/907 - Release Date:
7/18/2007 3:30 PM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.snort.org/pipermail/snort-users/attachments/20070719/0600fae6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 16712 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <https://lists.snort.org/pipermail/snort-users/attachments/20070719/0600fae6/attachment.gif>

More information about the Snort-users mailing list