Subject: Re: IPFilter license changes
To: David <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/30/2001 11:42:52
I'm tired of this thread and I've stayed quiet until now, but someone
decided to cross-post to NetBSD port-i386 without context, so I'll clear
a few things up.
(this doesn't really belong in port-i386, hence current-users).
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 06:05:46PM -0700, David wrote:
> I'm sure many of you have heard of the license changes in the IP
> Filter development. Perhaps this might not mean much to many people, the
> license has now said that redistribution of the source is forbidden. I'm
> curious of the opinions on this, though for some people, it's a terrible
> license especially when finding a bug or modifying the source for
> individual purposes. Even with the license changes, does anyone know what
> happens to the "modified" OpenBSD ipf? I have a friend who works with
> some unix developers, one of his fellow work mates got into a "sue
> me" argument with the developer of IP Filter (I forget his name), so lots
> of different reactions.
I think you are either confused, or are unnecessarily confusing the
[snip license from _non release_ ipf3.4 code]
Redistribution is not permitted.
As Darren has pointed out, this was deliberate as he does NOT want or
need non-release code distributed by anyone other than himself. And he
has every right to make that choice. If anyone has a conceptual problem
with this, perhaps they should stop using ipf.
ipf3.4.17 (which IS general release) had a two line change to the
license file, which states "without the author's prior consent".
What part of that do people not understand?
If Darren has an agreement with NetBSD/OpenBSD/other, what does it
matter? You should be thankful that such a product exists, let alone be
available at no cost.
It's his software, he can do with it what he likes. This is exactly the
kind of rubbish that Darren does not need.
In Darren's own words:
[snip from ipfilter list]
> diff -ru ip_fil3.4.17.dist/LICENCE ipf34-current/LICENCE
> --- ip_fil3.4.17.dist/LICENCE Mon Mar 13 23:10:18 2000
> +++ ipf34-current/LICENCE Fri May 18 16:18:17 2001
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> - * Copyright (C) 1993-2000 by Darren Reed.
> + * Copyright (C) 1993-2001 by Darren Reed.
> * The author accepts no responsibility for the use of this software and
> * provides it on an ``as is'' basis without express or implied warranty.
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
> * 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.
> + * Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted
> + * without the author's prior consent.
> * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> Can you please explain this change in license to us? What exactly do you
> consider derivitive or modified works? Does this imply that newer version of
> IP Filter can no longer used in other products unless you explicitly approve
There is no change. It's always been that way - from day 0 - so there
is no going back to an older version which has a different licence.
The licence has only ever granted right to redistribute/use, not modify.
The only difference is those two lines make explicit what was only implied
before. As it points out, it is explaining what the prior sentence means,
not adding any new meaning.