Slashdot Mirror
lpf Removed From OpenBSD
A nameless reader writes: "A few hours ago Theo DeRaadt removed the ipf source from the OpenBSD cvs tree in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf. Theo's remarks on the licensing change are visible in the commit log
here." Theo notes there that "software
which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they
people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including
modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching
machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia." That's keeping things all-purpose all right ;)
Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom. True freedom is being able to do *anything* with the source, commercial, redistribution, or whatever. If some commercial company picked up and supported my favorite GNU-based app, I'd be thrilled, even if they didn't release the source. If they did something that was that special a value-add, they should be recognized for it. And the open source community is free to clone their features in as free a form as they see fit.
I really wish more people saw the GPL as having the hampering effect that it does; let it truly be free; let the market forces and the open source cloners and innovators determine how the code evolves and branches. If someone uses it commercially, make them give credit, but don't make them give up their value-added code which they make their living with. If the changes are useful, someone will clone 'em! If they can't, then the company is really adding something special; don't restrict or disincent them from doing so by forcing them to give up the rights and privacy of their proprietary addition.
You're looking for netfilter for Linux 2.4. Two different projects. As far as I know, netfilter is GPL'd since it is included in the kernel. It probably has everything ipfilter does except a BSD license. If you're just looking to build a stateful firewall it should work fine.
Did he ever try to correct the "misunderstanding" by the OpenBSD project? They were violating his license, if you go with the idea that he just clarified and did not change the license. Why didn't he tell them before now?
/tell/ them before they became dependent on the code. It's seen as a change, because he's never let anyone know they were violating the spirit of his license, at least as he read it. IANAL, so I make no comment on the license itself, but it was poor of him to let the OpenBSD people use ipf, "violating" his license, and become dependent on it, before he "clarified" the license.
If someone misunderstood the license, he had a responsibility to
People aren't as pissed about the licensing as the way it was done.
-30-
Theo notes there that "software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia."
What Theo does not show what BSD should be. It shows the very nature of software. And BSD recognizes this very nature as a principle of use. Unfortunately many people attempt to overcome a natural fact by putting licences and restrictions. Much like the "bridge taxes" that were so common on the Middle Ages. Taxes were not only made on bridges built by the owner, but also on ancient roman bridges, bridges built by the community or third parties. Frequently taxes rose to absurd levels, which lead to clashes and even small wars. Something very similar can be seen in todays software.
Meanwhile there is a danger that Theo might have got too far. First because Australia surely will further see OpenBSD as a national menace. Second because Theo seems to live in California and there seems to exist a very weird rule there that considers even sugestions of using atomics as a terrorist threat... So time for Bush to switch out his NMD plans in exchenge for the new BSD (Berckley Software Defense) program... Considering the fact that BSD is red and has a small devil playing around with a fork, it will be absolutely easy for the conservative minds at Washington to readapt to the new threat:
"The Reds are coming!"
"The Red Evil menace"
"It's the devil in cheap... o damn... sheep clothes. Anyway it's in cheap clothes also..."
He has spent countless hours working on code, and now everyone is acting all pissed at him because THEY misunderstood the license. Knowing how the /. crowd tends to work, I wouldn't be surprised if he's getting TONS of harassing flames from uninformed idiots.
Folks, it is not for us to tell the author of ANY code what he can or cannot do with it.
Seems that someone figured out that OpenBSD is making the play for the lucrative baby mulching business and they're using ipf as a roadblock to these ends...
from Darren Reed:
IPFilter no longer available...
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2001/05 /30/0004.html
Oh, and Reed's message above is some kind of Theo de Raadt-oriented flamebait :-)
-- Colin
So Darren Reed gets his wish, and the OpenBSD people will no longer be modifying his code without his permission.
The OpenBSD people get their wish, and all the code they distribute is completely free of any restrictions on use, modification, etc.
Two lessons to be drawn from this mess:
1) Carefully read the licenses on code you intend to use before you actually use it, and feel free to get any questions you have cleared up. The worst that can happen (in theory...) is that the lawyers give you an answer you don't like, and you can't convince the developer to agree to otherwise. Which leads to the second lesson:
2) Don't use code you can't/won't adhere to the licensing restrictions for. Free/OSS licenses are rooted in copyright law, using it in an unorthodox fashion to allow instead of restrict freedom, but still relying on its existence for their own. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL code. If you can't use Windows without being able to see the source and fix patches on your own, and you don't have a whack of cash for the right/the stomach to sign the NDA, don't use Windows code.
If the developer's being a bit of a jerk about an ambiguous part of his/her license, screw 'em, switch to a freer/Freer alternative. There's tons of GPL'd and BSD'd code out there for the studying and using; why waste your time trying to pry a privilege from someone who doesn't want to give you that privilege?
I know, I know - easier said than done, and I'm sure you have several objections and points to bring up. Point being, it could have been much, much nastier. As it is, Reed's code won't benefit from the advantages of open source/free software as quickly as the BSD/GPL alternatives will, but if that's the way he wants it, fine by him. That's his right, just as it's Theo's right to tell him to shove off and take his code with him.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I think you missed a point...
The license (as "clarified") bans modified versions.
The version used with OpenBSD is modified.
So they had to take it down.
Now you have two choices:
Download and install a copy of the modified version. This violates the license.
Download and install a copy of the UNmodified version. This means you don't have the OpenBSD modifications.
Now since the whole POINT of OpenBSD is that it has been heavily vetted for security bugs, do you REALLY want to install the UNmodified version? Of the FIREWALL code?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just because it not included in the distibution does not mean you cant use it. You can still download the package from http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~avalon/ and compile it yourself.
We are desperately in need of developers to write replacement code for lpf over here at http://sourceforge.net/projects/babymunchingmachin e/home.html
Someone you trust is one of us.
The idiots on =deadly.org didn't help the situation. A bunch of whiny jerks got all obnoxious. Additionally, the mail bombing of personal attacks from slashdot/deadly was EXTREMELY counter productive.
This is a delicate situation where OpenBSD conceivably broke copyright law and sold CDs as a result.
Diplomacy was needed here, and all this reporting was counter productive. I love OpenBSD, but this was unfortunately Theo's doing. The version of IPFilter in OpenBSD was modified, and the author was never notified. While BSD and GPL licenses don't require notifying the author, common decency does. Unfortunately, an unspoken goal of OpenBSD is to have better software by keeping their changes kinda quiet. You could build a product off OpenBSD, but migrating OpenBSD's changes into FreeBSD is problematic. Given how much gets taken from FreeBSD, this is kinda obnoxious. Nobody really calls OpenBSD on this because it is a small userbase. We only run OpenBSD because the servers we run need very few applications, and the OS+Ports gives us that quickly without cruft. However, the political issues in OpenBSD are a little sad.
Net/Free will stay away from this pissing match with a 10-ft pole. They may hope for a Free (BSDL) filtering package to show up, but they won't get involved in Theo and Darren's pissing match. If OpenBSD gets one working (and likely will in the next 6 mo., OpenBSD's coders are as brilliant and competant as Theo is obnoxious...) FreeBSD and NetBSD may migrate to OpenIPF. However, until they have something done, there is no reason for them to back Theo.
Theo, good luck and happy coding. I wish you would pick up some diplomatic finesse, it would make your life easier. Either way, love the system and look forward to my OpenBSD 2.9 CD.
"in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf."
Get this through your heads: There was no licensing change. None. The terms of the license have not changed at all.
IPFilter was never under a BSD-style license. It never mentioned the right to modify. The way copyright works is that any right not explicitly granted is implicitly reserved. Thus since the right to modify is not explicitly granted, it is implicitly reserved (ie, denied).
Lots of people read the license and either saw the word "modify" where it didn't exist, or assumed that the right to "use" includes the right to "modify", which it in a legal sense it does not.
Because of this state of confusion and false assumption, Mr. Reed clarified his license by adding the statement, "Yes, this means that derivative or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent. "
The addition of this statement to the license in no way changed the terms of the license itself. Any previous version of the code bearing the unclarified license still implicitly denies granting the right to modify. Now any version of the code bearing the clarified license merely explicitly denies the right to modify. No real change there.
What so worrisome about the license now that people understand it is that there is no possibility of legally fixing the code in the case of Mr. Reed's refusal or inability to do so himself. Nor is there any possibility of creating a legal fork of the code since there is no point from which to legally fork it.
In a truly free market (i.e., without the temporary monopolies granted by "intellectual property"), the GPL would be redundant because everyone would already have all the freedoms you describe. The GPL isn't a virus, it's a vaccine. It keeps the intellectual property market from destroying itself. Salk could have taken a patent out on the polio vaccine, but he said that "would be like patenting the sun". We don't have many people with that much character these days.
Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom.
What a lovely little rhetorical flourish you add with the phrase "infectious". How is this different from laws which coercively restrict your freedom? The old dictum "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" applies here. The idea of enforced freedoms requires that a little liberty be given up so that more total liberty will be available for more people. The GPL is just an example of the democratic system at work.
Intellectual property law (rather than the GPL) is the root of the problem, creating artificial monopolies without achieving its stated purpose of fostering innovation. This is what clogs up the market, and the GPL is the most powerful weapon available to keep information and ideas available to the public rather than in the hands of faceless corporations.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Developing open source software with a license that doesnt give the freedoms like the BSD and GNU GPL license will only hurt the community. Simply because not many will want to use it. So instead of another developer wasting time doing the SAME THING over again under a license with freedom, he could be doing something truly innovative.
When will they learn!
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents