Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:49:47 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFilter not free software? Message-ID: <20010524144947.I52234@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010524053451.0443c350@localhost>; from brett@lariat.org on Thu, May 24, 2001 at 05:38:01AM -0600 References: <20010524122010.C52234@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010524053451.0443c350@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass said on May 24, 2001 at 05:38:01: > At 04:20 AM 5/24/2001, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted > > without the author's prior consent. > > > > That means, of course, that IPFilter is not free (or even open source) > > software. > > But didn't he just give that consent immediately above? I don't see a > problem. This confirms my impression that when you read something, you think it means whatever you want it to mean. He didn't give consent for modification, only for redistribution. If you follow the mails linked from the lwn.net page, he makes it clear that his aim is that there should be only one true ipfilter, which comes from him and him alone. Of course, Dan Bernstein does the same thing, but he adds that you can *always* legally distribute modifications as patches if you want to. He only forbids you from distributing a modified source tarball or binary... If he's right in his law, the same would be true of ipfilter too. Others have suggested an Apache-style license for ipfilter, where you can modify the code but must change the name of the program to distribute your modifications. - Rahul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010524144947.I52234>