Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing

[Kevin Johnson <kjohnson () secureideas net>]

Hi-

As a project lead on an open source project, I feel that I need to weigh
in on this thread.  Not that anyone needs to care what I think, I just
feel like we need more of the view point from people who are willing to
put their time where their keyboard is! 

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 00:24, Peter J Manis wrote:
> I agree.  This is sad.  Essentially, what is happening here is taking the 
> open out of the opensource.  

I would love to hear how someone making money off of their hard work
while continuing to release the code for free is removing the open from
open source.  Your comment reads like someone shooting off before really
understanding what is happening.

> First the rules from Sourcefire, and now they 
> are trying to take Bleeding Snort.  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?  

I think that your understanding of the post on bleeding snort is tainted
by your ire over a license change.  Any one who read the post with an
open mind would see a good combining of groups not a hostile takeover.


> 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!  

Where would you get this information.  Remember that being inflammatory
in no way makes your argument correct.

> Next will be Snort itself!  The end result will be 
> the destruction of Snort in the opensource community.  

I always love reading sentences like this.  As I believe the BASE
project has proven, no one group or person can every destroy a project
that has once been open-sourced. If Sourcefire even wanted to close the
source for Snort, which is their right but not their stated intention,
all it would take is someone to create a project and release "Whiff",
the fork of the existing codebase.  As a matter of fact, if you don't
like what Sourcefire is doing, please do exactly that.  Maybe then you
will understand what it is like to pour your effort into a project, and
have some greedy bastard that gives nothing back steal it and make a
profit.


> 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.  

While I agree that Snort has been made better because of the community,
I think that paying the developers of it could never be contradictory.

> This is at least my opinion of the 
> situation.
>
> Peter

Thanks for your opinion, and I hope that you read mine with some of the
taint from your ire removed.  People need to understand that Open Source
only means that the community will work together to build something. 
Not that the something will be free.  We have all benefited from the
time and Money that Sourcefire has put behind the community and the
project.  No one seems to mind that IBM sells a branded version of
Apache called IHS.  Why is it that when a company like Sourcefire or
Nessus need to support themselves people come out of the wood work to
give them a hard time?

Thanks for listening and I for one want to THANK Marty and the group at
Sourcefire!

Kevin Johnson
-------------------
BASE Project Lead
http://sourceforge.net/projects/secureideas
http://base.secureideas.net
The next step in IDS analysis!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part