IPF License Change: Redistribution Not Allowed

An Anonymous Coward writes: "I found this at SecurityPortal, here. I use IPF and I noticed last week in the snapshot the license changed: 'Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent.' which was kind of bad since it violated OpenSource guidelines. Now the current snapshot of IPF says 'Redistribution is not permitted' which completely violates any Open Source style license. Does this mean IPF will have to fork an older version or someone needs to write a completely new version for all the BSD's/Solaris/etc?" The old license certainly doesn't read this way to me, but IPF author Darren Reed asserts this is only a clarification of the license, not an actual change. Another ssh vs. OpenSSH? More coverage at LWN, partway down the page.

Comments

Once again slashdot panics without the facts...

[ryder]

This license applies only to certain test releases releases etc, that the author posts for testing purposes doesn't want in general distribution.

Information from Darren Reed on this appears at this URL:
http://false.net/ipfilter/2001_05/0458.html

Link to above URL

"Use in source code" vs. "no derivative works"

[Raphael]

The previous license says (emphasis mine):

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given
to the original author and the contributors.

Now the author claims that the license said that "redistribution" and "use" were allowed, but not "modifications" and he has added a statement clarifying that, claiming that it had always been that way:

Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted
without the author's prior consent

But this does not make sense to me: this addition does change the meaning of the license. Allowing "use in source [...] form" should imply that I am free to use the (unmodified) source code in any project, thereby creating a "derivative work".

The debate over "modified works" is another problem. Indeed, the original license did not explicitely allow any modification to the source code, only its use. However, the license did not specify what is meant by "use in source form", especially what happens if you only take a small part of the source code and use it in some other project. Or if you use most of the original source code (without any modifications), and use it in a new project that contains only one new file that happens to be compatible with an old file in the original IPF code and provides some new features.

I do not know what a judge would think about someone who says "you can use my source code" as if it meant "look, but don't touch." Most programmers would think that "use" means "use whatever part of this code in any project, including modified versions."

Partly

[Platinum Dragon]

Yes, the -submitter- failed to mention or discover that Reed only meant the redistribution restriction to apply to certain test releases. However, the restrictions on modification apply to -all- releases, past and future.

For another thing, this isn't panic; this deals with legitimate license questions, and raises issues of using non-free-licensed code in free/open-source software. IPFilter's license does not allow any modification without the author's permission; although I don't imagine Reed being evil over modifications being made for the *BSDs, it still goes against some of the spirit of OSS, and it calls into question how lax software maintainers should be about the licenses they allow into their software, especially when a clarification like this reveals restrictions that weren't explicitly mentioned previously, but are assumed to apply retroactively.

I can forsee a code license audit coming soon after this incident.