Anon wrote: OpenBSD has started getting a new packet filter, pf, written largely by Daniel Hartmeier. The commits have been flying since then, but it looks like the new filter is going to be ipf-compatible as well as BSD licensed.
Exactly the same licence problem occurred with Pine; their FAQ says:
10.2 Weren't earlier Pine licenses less restrictive regarding redistribution of modified versions?
No. License wording has changed from time to time, but the owner's intent has not. When it was discovered that some individuals were misinterpreting the intent of the University, the license wording was clarified.
In particular, the earliest Pine licenses included the words: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software... is hereby granted," but some people tried to pervert the meaning of that sentence to define "this software" to include derivative works of "this software". The intent has always been that you can re-distribute the UW distribution, but if you modify it, you have created a derivative work and must ask permission to redistribute it. There has never been implicit or explicit permission given to redistribute modified or derivative versions without permission. The license wording was therefore changed to clarify this point.
What worries me is that there are many other 'free software' projects using a licence worded like this, and until now I'd automatically assumed it was equivalent to the BSD or X11 licences.
Someone from each of the *BSDs and from each Linux distribution needs to grep through the COPYING files for occurrences of the above text, or text like it, and ask the author for clarification.
It would be best to get rid of this permission notice altogether, and change to something less ambiguous.
-- --
Ed Avis
ed@membled.com
Here's the URL with details
by
Therin
·
· Score: 5
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 have been 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 and distribution thereof are allowed.
So, it can definately be argued that Reed's new license is a change in meaning.
The OpenBSD Project, admittedly, made a mistake by including IPF initially. The fact that Daren Reed did NOT change the license, he clarified it. Any copyright lawyer would tell you that OpenBSD could NOT have continued using IPF (and really, should not have to begin with).
If I may, this was the original statement:
* 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.
Notice the lack of "with or without modification", as is standard in a BSD style license. This DOES INDEED mean that modification is not permitted (wihtout prior approval of course)
I am sick and tired of the FUD that is being spread that just because "Theo didn't like it" IPF was removed, this is not the case.
OpenBSD is used by several commercial organizations who also modify it. OpenBSD has a responsibility to those organizations, and if they must get Daren's permission before they change anything that OpenBSD distributes, it is not in the best interest of those organizations or of OpenBSD.
OpenBSD has taken the high road by avoiding issues later by removing it to prevent any confusion for it's users.
Clarification? No free version?
by
Arker
·
· Score: 5
Well the license was not redifined but "clarified" in it's meaning, the license never changed, there are no free versions.
So Darren has said recently. But, in all fairness, that just doesn't fit the evidence. See for instance this post from a year ago, where Darren refers to his work as "public domain." Contrast that with his more recent statement in computerworld that he has "never considered IPFilter to be open-source."
The license hasn't changed, no, but Darrens publically stated interpretation of the license sure as hell has.
Having followed this story closely, the best I can tell what happened is this. Darren initially intended his license to be BSD compatible, wrote it to be BSD compatible, and everyone using and contributing thought it was indeed BSD compatible. Darren didn't correct them because so far as he was concerned they were correct. Recently he got upset at the possibility or actuality (not sure which) of people distributing modified versions of his own betas, and added the "clarification" to a beta, intending only to prohibit modified versions of that particular version, not of regular releases. At this point Theo and others realised that the original license was indeed less than perfectly clear, and fearing that he would try to extend the prohibition further, and concerned that the license wasn't clear enough about modifications, they began to ask him to change the license. Apparently Theo managed to really rub him the wrong way in the process, and he got angry, and decided based on the vagueness in the licensing terms he could get away with closing it all retroactively, just to spite Theo. Begin the flamefests and the inevitable removal of ipfilter from OBSD.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
That's funny, I've got a netfilter box hosting 4 IPSec tunnels as well as firewall duties for a 2mbps link, 256MB RAM on a Duron 750. Guess what my load is?
0.00 0.00 0.00
Of course, since load average is only calculated based on the number of processes waiting for CPU, and since netfilter is entirely coded in-kernel, your load average will never be more than 0.0 on that firewall, regardless of your hardware.
FreeBSD was not bought by BSDI. Yahoo! uses FreeBSD and provides most of it's current funding (or at least provides the funding to Walnut Creek who then funds FreeBSD). Since Yahoo wanted dual processor machines, they "integrated" BSDI into FreeBSD resulting in SMP support in FreeBSD (as of 4.3 I believe)
Let's also not forget that the majority of Linux code is STILL based on (old) *BSD code.
There is a saying that applies here (I think):
"BSD is for people who love UNIX; Linux is for people who hate Windows"
Slashdot Mirror
Someone from each of the *BSDs and from each Linux distribution needs to grep through the COPYING files for occurrences of the above text, or text like it, and ask the author for clarification. It would be best to get rid of this permission notice altogether, and change to something less ambiguous.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Look here for details about pf.
John 17:20
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 have been 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 and distribution thereof are allowed.
So, it can definately be argued that Reed's new license is a change in meaning.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
No, it was not overblown.
The OpenBSD Project, admittedly, made a mistake by including IPF initially. The fact that Daren Reed did NOT change the license, he clarified it. Any copyright lawyer would tell you that OpenBSD could NOT have continued using IPF (and really, should not have to begin with).
If I may, this was the original statement:
* 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.
Notice the lack of "with or without modification", as is standard in a BSD style license. This DOES INDEED mean that modification is not permitted (wihtout prior approval of course)
I am sick and tired of the FUD that is being spread that just because "Theo didn't like it" IPF was removed, this is not the case.
OpenBSD is used by several commercial organizations who also modify it. OpenBSD has a responsibility to those organizations, and if they must get Daren's permission before they change anything that OpenBSD distributes, it is not in the best interest of those organizations or of OpenBSD.
OpenBSD has taken the high road by avoiding issues later by removing it to prevent any confusion for it's users.
I didn't see what the big deal was with IPF switching licenses, personally I thought it was taken all out of context by many.
Anyways for those looking for completely different alternatives check out T-Rex which is pretty neat, although a large download for those over dialup.
Also note that IPF *still* runs fine under OpenBSD although it's not likely to be included in the shipments going out now.
Want Root?
So Darren has said recently. But, in all fairness, that just doesn't fit the evidence. See for instance this post from a year ago, where Darren refers to his work as "public domain." Contrast that with his more recent statement in computerworld that he has "never considered IPFilter to be open-source."
The license hasn't changed, no, but Darrens publically stated interpretation of the license sure as hell has.
Having followed this story closely, the best I can tell what happened is this. Darren initially intended his license to be BSD compatible, wrote it to be BSD compatible, and everyone using and contributing thought it was indeed BSD compatible. Darren didn't correct them because so far as he was concerned they were correct. Recently he got upset at the possibility or actuality (not sure which) of people distributing modified versions of his own betas, and added the "clarification" to a beta, intending only to prohibit modified versions of that particular version, not of regular releases. At this point Theo and others realised that the original license was indeed less than perfectly clear, and fearing that he would try to extend the prohibition further, and concerned that the license wasn't clear enough about modifications, they began to ask him to change the license. Apparently Theo managed to really rub him the wrong way in the process, and he got angry, and decided based on the vagueness in the licensing terms he could get away with closing it all retroactively, just to spite Theo. Begin the flamefests and the inevitable removal of ipfilter from OBSD.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Of course, since load average is only calculated based on the number of processes waiting for CPU, and since netfilter is entirely coded in-kernel, your load average will never be more than 0.0 on that firewall, regardless of your hardware.
Jeremy
--
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
You moron.
FreeBSD was not bought by BSDI. Yahoo! uses FreeBSD and provides most of it's current funding (or at least provides the funding to Walnut Creek who then funds FreeBSD). Since Yahoo wanted dual processor machines, they "integrated" BSDI into FreeBSD resulting in SMP support in FreeBSD (as of 4.3 I believe)
Let's also not forget that the majority of Linux code is STILL based on (old) *BSD code.
There is a saying that applies here (I think):
"BSD is for people who love UNIX; Linux is for people who hate Windows"
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.