Snort mailing list archives
Fwd: What's up with Snort's license?
From: Martin Roesch <roesch () sourcefire com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:05:37 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Forwarding for Alan again: Begin forwarded message:
From: "Alan Shimel" <alan () stillsecure com> Date: July 18, 2007 7:41:21 PM EDT To: "Martin Roesch" <roesch () sourcefire com>, "Snort Users" <snort- users () lists sourceforge net> Subject: RE: [Snort-users] What's up with Snort's license? Marty Not sure if this will make it back to the list because the latest incarnation of our exchange server seems to have me under alan () stillsecure com and I think I am ashimel () latis com on the snort list. If you could forward for me. thanks On GPL, yes we disagree. I think your "clarifications" actually changes or modifies the GPL. You think it just states what it always meant. I think the FSF left it vague on purpose and this is something that you and I aren't going to solve. Lawyers have been arguing over this for years, so lets agree to disagree. On your other points, I think you sidesteped the issue. If I am reading this right, you are saying you don't want help from other commercial companies you just want licensing fees. So don't say you are looking for help and support, say you are looking for licensing revenue. It is not about what it costs you to keep up snort, it is about you own it and are entitled to a fee if others use it. Of course the GPL does not exactly say that, but at this point I think you are stuck with the GPL, so you clarify it to suit your needs as much as you accuse others of interpreting it to suit their needs. And of course that assumes you own all the code, which brings up the whole 3rd party issue which I will address in a bit. As to contributing to the project, lets be clear, you just said you don't want commercial companies help, you want license fees. Years ago we decided to support Matt Jonkman and the bleeding community as did other commercial entities. We didn't frankly see a way that you wanted us to help. On the other hand we were only too happy to join the VRT program and we thought of this as in some way helping and giving back, though frankly we don't use that rule feed. We don't have a problem paying for something, we just don't want to be held over a barrel with licensing fees that change as we become more competitive. I think you would want the same thing. As to what we give back, we have offered a free version of our IPS (which uses a snort engine) for a long time (http://www.stillsecure.org). We also put our new Cobia platform in what we consider a license which is clearer than the GPL (http://cobia.stillsecure.com). Let me be really clear. Our take on open source and Cobia is that if you use the product and don't resell or profit from it, it is free and you get the source code to modify and use. If you are going to resell it in any way, then you need a commercial license. Marty, I don't think that is very different than what you are trying to do. You are just trying to make sure the GPL says that. I don't think it does, so we wrote our own license. If you want to say that makes us not open source, that is fine by me too. Cobia is free and you get source code. But at the end of the day, we are trying to accomplish the same thing. In fact if you give Cobia away and don't profit from it, you are free to do so under our community license as well. On 3rd party contributions. I understand the reasons you give for the assignment. I just think it puts a chill on the communities willingness to contribute. Also on older contributions, did the contributors realize this when they contributed code? I think this is unfortunately the way it goes when open source projects get commercialized after starting out non-commercial. But Sourcefire and Snort are not the only ones dealing with this. We looked at the same thing with Cobia and again we made sure our license is really clear on it. So maybe it is not GPL and you may say that makes it not open source. I don't hold NMap up as the shining star of what is right and wrong either. They have their model and some agree and some may disagree with what they did with their interpretation of the GPL license. I say our community wants free software and the source code to modify. They understand if they resell or profit we expect them to use a commercial license. Isn't that what you are trying to accomplish? Here are two questions I do have Marty. If you run snort, don't modify it or anything and just take the output and use that output for your application. Is that a valid use under the 3.0 license? Would you still need a commercial license? The second question, if someone ported snort to run on Cobia and we distributed it for free with the free version of Cobia would that still need a commercial license under the 3.0 license? alan StillSecure Alan Shimel Chief Strategy Officer O 303.381.3815 C 516.857.7409 F 303.381.3881 StillSecure, After All These Years www.stillsecure.com 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. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Roesch [mailto:roesch () sourcefire com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:26 PM To: Alan Shimel; Snort Users Subject: Re: [Snort-users] What's up with Snort's license? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 18, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Alan Shimel wrote:Marty Thanks for the clarification. I wanted to clarify a few things myself. 1. I in my blog or anywhere else never claimed that Sourcefire was taking Snort out of open source. My claim and I stand by it, is that by putting your "clarification" of the GPL in on the 3.0 stuff, you are changing the GPL and it is no longer licensed under the "GPL" as we and our attorneys interpret it.We haven't changed the GPL in Snort 3. We're specifying what constitutes a derivative product in our view for the sake of clarity to commercial integrators. We're also saying that people who want to contribute code to the project do so with the knowledge that we're going to consider the code as assigned to Sourcefire unless other arrangements are made. This is necessary for two reasons: 1) Mitigation of IP encumbrance due to a "hostile" contributer trying to "inject" 3rd party IP into the project. The FSF does this but uses a full legal document, we're trying to avoid that encumbrance. It would seem that by your logic projects like GCC are also not licensed under the GPL. 2) Given that we need to be able to offer Snort under an alternative license for commercial integrators who are integrating Snort and don't want to adhere to the GPL it's essential that we retain the right to relicense the totality of the codebase. If people don't want to contribute their code to the project due to this clause they can maintain their code as external patches. I've always enjoyed interacting with the community (even if it is less often than it used to be) and I'll respect people's decisions with regard to this assignment clause as it relates to their desire to contribute. I hope people will still feel free to contribute, as I said the code isn't going to ever disappear but, as with Nmap, we need to reserve the right to relicense for commercial use.Does that make it not open source? I will leave that to others. My personal opinion is that you do not need a GPL license to be open source (but that is another matter). You choose what license you want to use. I just say it is not GPL anymore, it is Marty's GPL version.Then we disagree.2. Other companies using Snort. Marty what kind of support would you like? I feel that here you are not being quite as "open" as you would like us to believe. Do you mean that you want companies like StillSecure to contribute to developing and supporting snort or do you mean if you had your druthers you would prefer no other commercial entity uses snort to "compete" against you. If it is you want us to help support Snort, we are ready, willing and able. If you are using the open source license (gpl or otherwise) as a shield to prevent other companies from competing with sourcefire though, that is another story and you should just say so.I (and Sourcefire) are not asking for any support from commercial vendors. On the other hand, we do put quite a bit of effort into Snort and we distribute it under a license which we expect to be adhered to. I don't care if companies integrate Snort, we're happy when they do because it builds a larger community of Snort users which is better for all of us. Competition doesn't worry us in this regard, we feel that we serve our area of the market quite capably irrespective of other companies that offer Snort-based solutions. This isn't about that at all, it's about enforcing compliance with the license that Snort is distributed under. The primary problem I have with companies that don't contribute to the project is when they don't like us being assertive about our rights as the copyright holder. Their legitimacy to question our licensing language is highly suspect given their past contributions to and role in the community. If all a vendor does is take and they don't give anything back to anyone then let's call it what it is and say they're a vendor who's worried that they're going to actually have to pay for something that you've been getting for free.3. Changing peoples licenses and IP assignments - I think you realize the issues involved there and doing it in haste is not always the best way, but you apologized and that is enough for me. IP assignment is a case of buyer beware. But think about this, what message do you send to the developer community. You want people to help support snort but you are going to "own" what they contribute. Not very inviting, but at least you are upfront about it.I outlined the reasons for doing so above, people are free to contribute (or not) in any way they see fit. This is the exact same thing that the Nmap project has been doing since 2001, it seems to have worked well for that community and I think it'll work for Snort's community as well. -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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGnpORqj0FAQQ3KOARAoAjAJ9dYITfThxo69wt4+yOarXPye3W/ACfaTl1 5jNFVeKnN7F1xRMbMWoF4u8= =xCkz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- -- 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGnrjhqj0FAQQ3KOARAsX4AJ4kic3bY91Ss0Od3GuZ1w3Xd7wgQACbBhtY js1lfMHu7qtQTRP28wuCbfc= =1PT2 -----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 () 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
Current thread:
- Re: [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort's license?, (continued)
- Re: [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort's license? Alan Shimel (Jul 19)
- Re: [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort's license? Matt Jonkman (Jul 19)
- Re: [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort'slicense? Alan Shimel (Jul 19)
- Re: [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort'slicense? Victor Julien (Jul 20)
- Re: [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort'slicense? Alan Shimel (Jul 20)
- Re: [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort's license? Alan Shimel (Jul 19)
- Re: [Bleeding-sigs] RE: What's up with Snort's license? Martin Roesch (Jul 23)
- Re: What's up with Snort's license? Harry Hoffman (Jul 19)
- Re: What's up with Snort's license? Tom Le (Jul 19)