Framework License

[justfriends4n0w at yahoo.com (Randy Flood)]

I am not a lawyer. I have the following thoughts on the license.  Perhaps some of them are just misunderstandings of 
how I am reading it.   But,  anyway, here are my thougts: 
    0.  What is the overall goal of the license?  Is it to make the framework easy to commercialize?  It kind of sucks 
to think that Microsoft or whoever could buy the framework, and kill it, and no one could fork off an Open Source 
version of it.  I'd prefer to see a license where any modifications had to be provided back to the project, but where 
new versions of the framework could be made and distributed. 

    1. When you say that the license is permanent until terminated, that implies that you can terminate the license at 
any time for anyone.  That kind of sucks.  I'd prefer it was clearer that the license would terminate if it was 
violated, but that it could not just be terminated.  That makes developing for the framework less useful.

    2.  The definition of software is circular.  Don't you want to define it more along the lines of source code, 
executables, libraries, (documentation?) etc?  But, be careful, many people would like to generate shellcode using the 
Framework and then distribute it in other applications.  I'd like to see exploits called out specifically as modifiable 
and redistributable under either the Creative Commons License, or the license specified by the component developer.  
Specifically, at least one exploit was released under the GPL which I think prohibits you from making additional 
restrictions on its distribution.  I want the ability to customize any exploit in the framework, so that I can try to 
make them less likely to be detected by IDS systems or whatever.  Can I do that?   

    3.  What if I want to develop an alternative user interface or enhancement, but find that the framework itself 
would need modified in order to do so?  It would be nice to be able to do this, but it appears to be prohibited, or at 
the very least cumbersome to implement under the license.  

    4. I think you should permit people to make modifications, but prohibit them from distributing them.  

      5.  I think that rather than relying on the License being imposed when you use the software, you should rely on 
it being imposed for anyone who distributes the software.  I am not a lawyer, but I think that there is some question 
over whether licenses for software that rely on the use of the software can be enforced in many cases.  On the other 
hand, copyright law provides severe penalties for copying software and distributing it without a license.  Hence, use 
the wording from the GPL which, as I recall, states that you cannot redistribute the software without accepting the 
license.  If you insist on enforcing the license upon use, then create a separate clause that also enforces the license 
when people distribute it.  State that they have no right to redistribute it unless they accept the license.   

6. You need something that says if any one section of the license is deemed illegal, or unenforeble or whatever, that 
the remaining provisions are still binding. 
  
                        
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
 Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.metasploit.com/pipermail/framework/attachments/20060123/286001e5/attachment.htm>