Re: Re: FWTK Lic Questions

[Michel Bardiaux <mbardiaux () peaktime be>]

"Jensen, Greg" wrote:
> To respond to all the talk about how you can/can't use FWTK.  Let me
> clarify.
>
> The license that one agrees to when downloading FWTK indicates that it
> cannot be used in a "re-sell" enviorment. This means that an organization or
> an individual cannot take FWTK, modify the code, and resell the product to a
> third party.  FWTK is free for all, and free for use on Commercial networks
> if one chooses to.  This is a "not for profit" firewall package that has no
> support from TIS, NAI or PGP.
>
> It has always been the policy of TIS, Network Associates and PGP Security
> that FWTK can be used in a commercial enviorment without having to pay
> royalties or license fees of any form to Network Associates or PGP Security,
> if used and implemented in the manor described above.   If one wishes to
> upgrade to a full blown version of the Gauntlet VPN Firewall, that is thier
> choice, but not mandatory if one wishes to use FWTK in thier company.
>
> Thank you!
>
> -GJ
>
> "cheat sheet"
>
> Can:
> You can download and use for free in your organization or corporation
>
> Can't:
> You cannot re-sell FWTK or modify the code and re-sell. This is a "not for
> profit" firewall.
Both have always been very clear. What is *not* clear is all the
in-between area, particularly whether it is legal to sell *consulting*
about FWTK. Example: company X has 'signed' the license and DLed the
FWTK; now they ask me for help configuring their inetd.conf and rc
scripts and netperm table; may I ask a fee? And what if they ask me to
get and apply the nospam patches? And what if they ask me to modify
plug-gw to support encryption? And if I write patches for FWTK, what
will be their status? Do I have to 'open source' them, under what terms,
may I sell them, etc...

Some months ago, I went to the SANE2000 conference in Maastricht
(Netherlands). There was a one-day tutorial on Linux firewalls, and FWTK
was mentionned. It got high marks for functionality and robustness, but
then the speaker went on to say he did *not* recommend it because the
license was overly restrictive. Whan asked to elaborate, it seemed *his*
reading was that for-fee consulting about FWTK was not allowed.

Another point: GJ's answer is conspicuously silent about that anonymous
salesman and his heavy-handed tactics...

Greetings.
-- 
Michel Bardiaux

_______________________________________________
Firewall-wizards mailing list
Firewall-wizards () nfr net
http://www.nfr.net/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards