Slashdot Mirror
IPFilter Clarification
Joe Wanker writes "Darren Reed has posted some clarification on the IPFilter license hoopla. Specifically, counter-smacks Theo for the pile of bad press, states that threats don't do anyone any good, says he expects further releases to continue to contain the same licnese, and mentions that he is working with various core teams of important projects to make things work for everyone."
That also indicates IPF is not under a true BSD-style license. Since it does not seem to be, no matter what you think of Theo, Theo was correct in stating IPF no longer fits in a BSD OS base install.
I hope you realize that this issue is not a new issue, even to those in the GPL camp. There has been talk for years about some killer app that is closed source but uses Linux as the base OS. Because of it's popularity, compabilitiy and kernal changes must conform to the direction of that popular app.
Well, we can now say that this is not just a weakness to the GPL, but to any OS, even the free sort. Not because of popularity alone, but because of popularity and confusion/ambiguity of the license. IPF was just such a case, and this entire controversy is strong anecdotal evidence that the hypothetical situation of the GPL's weakness could occur, with the correction that it is not a GPL-specific weakness.
ok, darren has said that his license has been misinterpreted, that theo has been bad mounthing him and making bad press, the way i see it, theo is right, maybe not about the whole bad press crap, but hey, darren says the end user can modify his code and use it that way, but i was always under the impression that that simply wasnt enough for the bsd license...if i want to modify it and sell it closed source, as long as i give due credit, i should be able to...THAT is the bsd license, that is NOT what darren's license says...maybe i am on crack, i dont think so though, i do think dareen has a little bit of a fantasy going on now. he stepped on a lot of toes and for as non-chalant as he tried to be, he realizes he messed up and now is tried to backtrack in his opinions, if not on the license itself.
The link leads to a post on a mailing list archive. Take the time to read through some of the other comments posted there.
Now I can rest easy, knowing my bsd has been audited not only for security but also for questionable licenses.l
e rs _license)
from: http://www.bsdtoday.com/2001/June/Features496.htm
"After a lengthy (and "fun") discussion with Theo de Raadt, Wietse Venema updated his license. It is now:
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that this entire copyright notice
* is duplicated in all such copies.
(ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/pub/security/tcp_wrapp
As you can see, it added the "with or without modification" clause. tcp_wrappers now matches the goals of free open source."
Is that really too much to ask for? But now it's back to my OBSD2.9 install (complete with IPF).
AMF
If you go by Darrin's original clarification, IPFilter never had the right to fork in the license.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
You most certainly do have an implicit right to use software. I don't even think he can even restrict people from modifying software unless there is a more tangible contract than a text file distributed with the software.
What you do not have is an implicit right to distribute software (modified or unmodified). In order to copy or distribute copyrighted software you need license or fair use (or the equivalent concepts outside of the US, where OpenBSD is from). If Darrin says you can only distribute unmodified versions of IPFilter, OpenBSD has no choice but to respect his license and dump IPFilter from the OpenBSD distribution.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Or how about his message on the FreeBSD security list, where he describes it as public domain
Of the four main reasons to do software (money, prestige, scratch to itch and fun) I see that Reed is not having the first two. Does he enjoy it so much? Does he need IPFiler so much? Why does he develop it?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Is it really so bad when there are just a few enthusiasts out there that develop an operating system and focus on building a good, stable, reliable OS, completely ignoring market share?
Look at Mircosoft products, and see what focusing on market share creates. I also see it in my daily work: "Oh, hell, that thing probably doesn't work correctly" - "Ignore it, the customer wants it now, perhaps it works fine, and if not, we have to fix it anyway"
Michael Bergbauer (michael.bergbauer@gmx.net)
sorry, the "theo's being mean to me" defence is old, boring and lame. the license as i read it isn't very acceptable to a project that does security audits and, if worse comes to worse, aims to fix security holes in short order.
i don't run any servers that need openbsd's level of security, but if i did it would make me happy that a hardass like theo was running it.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
You are wrong. You have no implicit rights to use software, only rights given to you by the copyright holder. Nowhere in Reed's licence did it ever say "modify" so you have no right to modify the code. What he stated was implicit in his licence. Copyright isn't like trademarks. If you don't inforce it you don't lose it.
Reed is perfectly within his rights to prevent people from modifying his code and De Raadt is perfectly within his rights to tell him to place it where the sun doesn't shine and write his own. Once that happens how long do you think it will be before Free/NetBSD's are using OpenIPF which has a truely open licence?
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
"Use in binary form" means no modification of the binary even though it is possible. Why should "Use in source form" mean any different? You can use the source to as it is intended (to make the binary) but not modify it. No explicit permission is given to modify anything which is necessary. It'll likely come down to what the judge's teenage kid thinks of it because there's a good change they'll have nfi.
Darren had made his feelings clear (until the second "clarification" which seemed to say "you _can_ modify it so long as you don't have anything to do with Theo because he hurt my feelings") that he didn't want people to modify it. Arguing legal technicalities that are contrary to the authors wishes is very bad. If a close source company does it then they get flamed big time. This is no different.
Theo's done the right thing (a little lacking on diplomacy though). He drew attention to something that was a problem. When Darren clarified his position Theo pulled IPF from OpenBSD and has started moves to fix the problem. Darren now has to make a choice, change the licence or get sidelined. His latest "clarification" is nothing more than an attempt to get the Free/NetBSD people on his side so they don't also pull IPF from their distros and support OpenIPF.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
He didn't have to. Without explicit permission from the copyright holder you have no rights at all to their software. He gave permission to use and redistribute but there was no mention of modification which means we have no right to modify it. Everyone assumed he gave permission and he didn't correct them. Unlike trade marks you don't have to defend copyright. He didn't change the licence (we didn't have the right to modify the code ever), he clarified it.
Is what he did particularily ethical? Not really.
Is what he did within his legal rights? Most probably.
The only real issue is who else contributed and did they transfer the copyright of their work to him. Those people could make Darren's life difficult.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I would appreciate it greatly if someone could post information about the various projects of open-source firewall-type software available today. Thanks.
Finding God in a Dog
In the "clarification" of the original license (which many took for re-interpretation), Darren claimed "this means no modification".
Now in this message, he claims "The licence is intended to mean that people can use (which includes modify or patch or tune, as seen fit)".
If you *can* modify it, what was the whole point of the "clarification"?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
>Actually, it is "open source." It is not, however, "free."
) .
Wrong! According to the Open Source Initiative's definition "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
(http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html
>Darren Reed raises some good points on his >behalf. If one wants to create a piece of >software, and then give it to the open source >community, nobody should go to tell him that he >should release it under some particular license.
:-)
If the software in question is released under a closed license that nothing has really been given to the open source community.
When a license says that distributing modified version is not allowed, THAT is indeed a closed source license.
>All Reed wants to do is to make sure that he >holds the strings in IPFilter development.
Isn't that all that Microsoft wants to do? Hold the strings in Windows and Office development?
I'm hoping that with Darren's most recent clairification that this whole issue is over.
>I also think that Darren Reed has a right to >license HIS code anyway that he damn well pleases.
Agreed. However, Theo also has a right to license HIS project however he damn well pleases and to set standards for inclusion into his project. Darren Reed's last "clarification" said that distributing modified version of IPF was not allowd. That's very much contrary to the stated goals of the OpenBSD project. Theo would have been a hypocrite *not* to pull IPF from OpenBSD.
And don't pretend that you just figured out that Theo can be an ass. Next thing you'll say that RMS is a bit rigid.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
If one wants to create a piece of software, and then give it to the open source community, nobody should go to tell him that he should release it under some particular license.
This is a bit if a a simplification of the real issue, unfortunately. The real issue is the perception that he changed the license. I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly seems like the new wording adds new restrictions contrary to his insistence that it is only intended as a clarification.
I agree that nobody should try to tell a developer what is the "correct" license. But by choosing to use his own license & not have it checked by a lawyer to make sure no later "clarification" was needed, Reed invited the hassles he's facing now.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that his "clarification" was wrong, or legally invalid. Just that it probably did more harm then good.
I'm pretty much license agnostic. If you develop a program, license it as you see fit. However, it's important to realize that "natural selection" will occur based on your license choice, so choose carefully. A perfect example of this was cited in a previous discussion-- qmail. A strong case could be made that qmail is the premier MTD around today, yet it's nowhere near as popular as Sendmail. Obviously some of that is simply due to legacy issues. But a larger problem is quite probably the more restrictive license that DJB uses. His restrictions are in place for good reasons, but they do affect it's popularity. Is the trade off worthwhile? I don't know, but I presume that DJB (& Darren Reed) would say so.
He never stated it was open source, his license doesnt state anything that would maek you think it was. He just says you can use and distirbute it as long as you give credit. Modification is never granted.
this space for rent
That the license was not actually changed. Rights of distribution of modified and derivative packages are exclusive rights. If these rights are not explicitly granted or transferred by the copyright owner, they remain exclusively in the hands of the copyright owner. Darren did not grant or transfer these rights. The license text change does not constitute a change in what is allowed under the license.
I have to say that if people are having problems understanding exactly what rights the license gives them, then there IS something wrong with it.
--
Apple is using IPFW in Darwin.
Yep, the fucker even calls it "Open Source" at one point:
r -0 007/110/1.html
http://msgs.SecurePoint.com/cgi-bin/get/ipfilte
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Here's why Reed's new license wording is in fact a change in meaning:
1. He did not in the past correct people who were under the impression
that it was BSD-licensed. Now, copyright law doesn't require this - but
common courtesy does.
See e.g. this thread:
http://false.net/ipfilter/1999_12/0055.html
And of course, Open, Free, and Net BSDs distributing modified versions
w/o any problems.
Now, the original license seemed to allow modification - I base this on
two things, which I have marked with _s :
"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."
1. Allowing redistribution in binary form is already allowing derivative
works - the original is distributed only in source form.
2. Removal of the notice would constitute modification - the existence
of this phrase implies that other modifications are allowed.
So, it can definately be argued that Reed's new license is a change in
meaning.
(I tried to post this to my local LUG mailing list, but their server is on crack).
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Excuse me, stop your flame for a moment, I clearly explained what my lawyers said. "use in both source and binary forms" can be argued to mean that derivative works are permited. Your opinion really doesn't matter, it is the lawyers opinions that matter and my lawyers have told me that Darren would lose if he tried to sue anyone who has made a derivative work of his code within the last eight years. This also means that if Darren does not change his license you are still permitted to make derivative works. Please note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you are considering forking Darren's code I suggest you contact an lawyer. I except he will tell you the same thing as my lawyers have told you, but really it is a mute point because Darren is not going to sue you.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The issue is that Darren did not make it clear what his intentions were, nor has he done so for the last eight years.
How we know is more important than what we know.
again. I will take your opinion with a grain of salt considering that the lawyers I have consulted seem to disagree with you. The common "use" of source is to make derivative works. Without explicitly prohibiting this from the common use he has explicitly stated that it is permited.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Darren's license will not stand up in court. For the last 8 years Darren has been very happy to watch people make changes to his code. Now he wants to retain control. Sorry, it doesn't work that way Darren. You should have told us eight years ago and we would have started our own project. The inability to make modified works makes your code useless, totally. Now, on the matter of a fork. You cannot stop it. Your removal of the words "with or without modification" from the BSD license is not enough. The words "use in source and binary forms is permitted" does not exclude making derivative works. I'm not just talking out my ass here, I have spoken with a number of copyright lawyers who are active in the Open Source community. If you sue, you will lose and you will waste a lot of money doing so. I believe you are aware of this (as you've indicated in other posts) and this is why you have specifically changed the license. Good for you, I wish you had done it eight years ago. Is this a moral thing to do? Well obviously that depends on how you feel about copyright in general. Stallman would disagree, but hey, that's Stallman. So you've bait and switched us all? You claim that you've done all the work and gotten nothing in return. I know how that feels, and I dont begrudge you for changing your license to retain a little more control, but dont try to be an indian giver. You may think you are doing nothing you're not entitled to do, after all, you wrote the code right? Well as I said, if you had made it clear that this was the case eight years ago we could have written some code too. Maybe yours would be better, maybe ours would be better, that's not the issue, the issue is that our code would have come without strings attached. Strings that say that we cant even fix bugs without your permission. Yes, by your interpretation, we can fix em on our private machine, sure, but we cant distribute those changes (actually, I'll inform you that patches are covered under fair use, but that's a poor substitute). Oh I hear you when you say that you'll accept any changes and distribute it for us. I hear you but I also hear the voice of time. Sooner or later you're going to blink out of existance Darren. And who do you think will own your copyright? Your wife, your son, your parents, that's *if* you have a will. Are they going to keep developing your code? Are they going to rerelease your code under a more liberal license? Or are they going to auction it off to the highest bidder who will then have the sole rights to make derivative works for the next 50 years? The fact is, if you close the source we are all left with an unchangable block of code that we cant make changes to. Remember here, I'm talking about your new license, with the specific conditions you have placed on derivative works (which at least was clear about the matter). Come on man, think about the big picture. If you are going to screw with the license, just close it now.
:)
Which is one of the good reasons I should give up ranting
How we know is more important than what we know.
Okay,
In the ORIGINAL license he gave permission..
"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"
Then he CHANGED/ADDED/CLARIFIED with..
"Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent."
So, he didnt want the original changed, or forked.
But now he is saying..
"The licence is intended to mean that people can use (which includes modify or patch or tune, as seen fit) IPFilter as found within FreeBSD/NetBSD for whatever purpose they desire"
SO, in order, you can do what you want, as long as you credit. But no modifications. The license is intended to include modifications.
WHAT?!?!
WHICH IS IT??
Are modifications allowed or not? Yes or no? Its really that simple.
He is in that very hard place where he can either include ALL of bsd, or NONE. Yes, he and Theo are having a spat. Fine, I respect both of their feelings.
And if he wants to have a closed source license, so be it. But just be *CLEAR*. Choose a license. Just one, and STICK to it.
This last statement didnt clarify any more than the last statement did. It has completely confused things.
However, he has now SPECIFICALLY given permission to modify the version in freebsd's cvs.
I would grab that code, fork it, and turn it into OpenIPF.
This all comes down to wanting to help FreeBSD and NetBSD but not Open, because of how they do things. Well guess what? Thats not how BSD works. You either give FREELY, or you can use the GPL and go to the linux side of the fence.
Quit "clarifying" and CHOOSE an existing license so we know EXACTLY what to do with your code.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
The licence is intended to mean that people can use (which includes modify or patch or tune, as seen fit) IPFilter as found within FreeBSD/NetBSD for whatever purpose they desire - so long as the conditions (due credit and the notice) are met.
Cool. So can someone modify IPFilter as found within FreeBSD/NetBSD for the purpose of running well on OpenBSD or not?
>All the firewalling stuff is GPL... no licensing
>bullshit
What ?
What do you think the 'L' stands for in 'GPL'?
The GPL is a licence that is far more restrictive than any BSD licence. Its just restrictive in a different way.
Hate to say this, but despite thinking that Mr Reed has a fine piece of code here I'm with Theo.
Reed's re-interpretation of his original licence (and after reading many posts, thats what I believe it to be) goes against the spirit of BSD.
Theo deraadt summed it up by saying that it should 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"
Regards,
Veg
P.S.
I'm not knocking the GPL - Stallman is the man - its just that I dont have his strength of character...sorry.
- the less clear ipfilter's license is
- the more clear it is that Darren is rationalizing any interpretation that amounts to "(Free|Net)BSD good, OpenBSD bad"
Is Theo a jerk? I don't know, and I don't care. Local BSD/ipfilter advocates like to joke about the Linux kernel-of-the-month club, in reference to how rapidly and radically the Linux kernel changes. Hell, ipfilter is now in its own license-interpretation-of-the-week club.Here's wishing the best to folks woking on OpenIPF. The BSD folks deserve a good, Free packet filtering package.
Since Darren Reed's previous license is vague, one must look to the circumstances surrounding his use of the license. First, he has allowed his software to be included in and treated as open source software. Second, he may have even claimed his software was open source or lead people to believe this fact. Third, people have dependended upon this fact and may have invested significant, and unquantifiable time and energy into his product via bug fixes, suggestions, etc. Fourth, these people probably did this under the understanding that his software was indeed open source. Under these conditions and through the doctrine of promissory estoppel, Darren may not have the right to provide an alternative interpretation of his license which would not comply with the open source definition (which explicitly includes the right to make deriviative work without asking the creator). Lastly, people should stop calling his software "open source" unless he explicitly grants this right to make derivitive works, and Darren should start correcting people when his software is refered as open source... beacuse his new interpretation of his license clearly isn't open source. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
promissory estoppel n. a false statement treated as a promise by a court when the listener had relied on what was told to him/her to his/her disadvantage. In order to see that justice is done a judge will preclude the maker of the statement from denying it. Thus, the legal inability of the person who made the false statement to deny it makes it an enforceable promise called "promissory estoppel," or an "equitable estoppel." Example: Bernie Blowhard tells Arthur Artist that Blowhard has a contract to make a movie and wants Artist to paint the background scenery in return for a percentage of the profits. Artist paints, and Blowhard then admits he needed the scenery to try to get a movie deal which fell through and there are no profits to share. Artist sues and the judge finds that Blowhard cannot deny a contract with Artist and gives Artist judgment for the value of his work.
A *BSD is dying post?
He was part of NetBSD, what does he do ? He forks it and makes OpenBSD.
He doesn't like the SSH restrictions, so he starts a new project OpenSSH (Not that this is bad but he makes it OpenBSD centric so someone ELSE has to create patches for FreeBSD, Linux, etc.) .. Someone else has the domain OpenSSH.org, so what does he do ? He sicks slashdot on them.
Now someone has software and won't suck up to him, he kicks their code out of OpenBSD and then someone registers openipf.org (for OpenBSD if you check the WhoIs)... Doesn't this seem a bit childish like the "I'm gonna take my marbles and play elsewhere" mentality ?
UPS Sucks
I'll buy his stated goal of not wanting to deal with patches that do no apply cleanly (and anyone who has dealt with multiple OS kernel code can attest to the royal pain that re-indenting and like changes are). However, wishing to codify this is guaranteed to rub people the wrong way (and of course, rubbing Theo the wrong way is a surefire way of starting a war).
The whole thing smacks of all parties doing "what-if"s, and Darren falling prey to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Not good.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
includes modify or patch or tune, as seen fit
This is fine, GPL allows this - what the issue appears to be is if someone can then DISTRIBUTE this modified version (allowing forking & an 'escape door' if he decides to completely abandon Free Software).
His email doesnt make the issue any more clear - or am I missing something?
- IPFilter is released and everyone (including Darren) believe it is an BSD type OSS license.
- A development version is released with a license that prohibits distribution of modified versions.
- Darren and Theo get into some sort of flame-fest over IPFilter (I don't know nor want to know the details of this).
- Darren gets the original IPFilter checked by a lawyer and then claims that the original license doesn't allow modification. He also pretty much refuses to publicly discuss it (saying "get a lawyer's opinion"), and comes off as an asshole.
- Theo yanked IPFilter out of OpenBSD. That was pretty much all he could do, but he was his usual abrassive self about it.
- Now Darren says the original IPFilter license does allow modification and that he won't change it because that would imply there's something wrong with it.
The problem is that the license is too vague. It doesn't mention modification anywhere. It does grant you the right to "use" the source code. Does "use" only mean study and compile or does it also include modification? This is a vital question to anyone who cares about only supporting/distributing open source software. Just seeing the source isn't enough (although MS would have you believe otherwise). What it boils down to is that whole reason this has become such an issue is that Darren got (rightly) annoyed that he was being made out to be the bad guy and got flammed heavily and then (wrongly) refused to clarify (until now) or change the license.Darren Reed raises some good points on his behalf. If one wants to create a piece of software, and then give it to the open source community, nobody should go to tell him that he should release it under some particular license. All Reed wants to do is to make sure that he holds the strings in IPFilter development. After all, it is *his* software, although available for everybody without fee. And it is under *his* jurisdiction, which license does he want to release it under, not /. community or even Theo. After all, we didn't pay for him to do IPFilter, we really aren't in the position to complain. If he wants to give it free to everyone, we should be thankful.
(This is just my $0.02, don't get all hysterical on my heretic opinions, I'm way too tired to think straight)
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
Bizarre, isn't it?
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Either way, for Reed to then write:
I'm sorry, but all of those people who have, for the last few days, taken Reed seriously and assumed Theo had done something awful, ought to be having second thoughts at this point. Yes, I know the man's hardly a diplomat, but the facts in this case are pretty much plain and in the open: Darren has created a confusing licence, doesn't quite know what to do about it, isn't quite sure what it should mean, and is blaming others for this confusion.
The OpenBSD team are on the verge of putting together an OpenIPF project, the domain has already been registered by Todd Fries. I sincerely hope that they succeed, and can produce something as flexible as IPFilter with a decent licence and consistant, intelligent, project management. It's a crying shame IPFilter will die a death because of this, it's a waste of code and a waste of good work, but in the current way its managed, it has to go.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You are not allowed to distribute modified code.
Clearly, Darren means "Do not make a fork (OpenIPF) and distribute it, it is illegal". But patching, fixing, tuning, porting should be legal as long as you GIVE CREDIT (as *BSDs always did), and as long as you are not making your own version. *BSDs never made their own versions, they just tuned IPFilter for use in the OS. *BSD folks never distributed (a modified) IPFilter without their OS. And that is why Darren was happy about it. Now if OpenBSD try to do that, it would be a violation.
I don't see why everyone is jumping at Darren, his licence is just to say "Hey, if IPFilter is used to enhance your product, ok, but if you are making IPFilter look like your product (e.g. distribute it separately) - don't try it".
Darren is right, IMHO. Because if he let everyone distribute their own fork of IPF people would still blame him for stuff he hadn't done. The job of an OS is to make an OS, not separate small products. And it has been this way, and will be.
Thank you, Darren for making that clear.
Softupdates for a time was under a restrictive license and available in FreeBSD.
It basically comes down to Darren wanting limited control over the IPFilter project. I haven't seen him say anything adverse to distribution, just that he'd like to be the one who controls the direction of the project.
Almost all the code was written by him anyway with a few patches from other people, relative.
This kind of license combines the worst of the closed and open source worlds.
In closed source you are dependant on one source for fixes. But it might make it more difficult for crackers to find holes because they can't look through the code.
In open source crackers can look through the code for holes. But anyone can look at the code and provide a fix.
Under this license crackers can go through the code looking for holes. But you are still dependant on one source to provide a fix.
As for "blame", I don't think Darren is to blame. IPF should never have made it into BSD into the project in the first place. It is the BSD project should have made sure that every piece of code that makes it into the distribution falls under a standard license. While the BSD project sometimes views the GNU folks as heavy-handed, they themselves must pay more attention to licensing issues if they want to keep the freedom inherent in the BSD distribution alive: if BSD gets invaded by more software contributions with restrictive licenses, BSD itself will cease to exist in its current form.
Successful open source software projects are great vehicles for purposes of marketing and establishing industry standards. As such, they are constantly at risk of being invaded by contributions that come with their own licenses and commercial or personal agendas. The GPL world has its own share of issues in this areas, with companies using projects to push their products by contributing either limited functionality code or code with strings attached. Watch out.