Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Python network security tools: Pcapy, Impacket, InlineEgg

• Previous message: Martin Roesch: "[Full-Disclosure] Snort not backdoored, Sourcefire not compromised"
• In reply to: Ng Pheng Siong: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Python network security tools: Pcapy, Impacket, InlineEgg"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

To: Ng Pheng Siong <ngps@netmemetic.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:25:57 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Ng Pheng Siong wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 12:50:06AM +0100, H?rnhammar, Ulf wrote:
> > [whatever]
> > That's an incorrect usage of the open source term. I quote the Open Source
> > Definition ( http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php ):
>
> The term "open source" has been understood to mean "comes with source code"
> long before people try to humpty-dumpty-tise it. Just like "free software"
> does not necessarily mean "GPL software".
>
> I happen to give away some open source (comes with source code) free
> software (comes with few restrictions). Personally I couldn't care less if
> it is "Open Source" or "Free Software".

I understand "Open Source" to mean that the source code is open for anyone
to use, without restrictions on commercial use. Restrictions apply when
you want to redistribute it.

If something is "Open Source", I should be able to do what I want with
it, as long as I don't distribute it or binaries resulting from it.

The BSD license is Open Source, although you are not required to provide
your derived code to the community. You do have to acknowledge them
if you distribute your code/binaries though. You are free to do this,
with that minor restriction.

I think it's more about that fact that anyone is allowed to use the
"Open Source" code for almost any purpose, but may have restrictions on
redistributing it and derivations of it.

We use a product, where we get the source code to it. We pay for this
and are free to modify the code as we see fit, but are *not* permitted to
redistribute that code. It is not "Open Source", but it is not "Closed
Source" either. One reason we picked this is that we can freely modify
the code for our own use, that is important to us. We can make it work
with our system and can fix bugs ourselves, regardless of the vendor.

So, this is something in the middle. We are free to modify and use
it, but cannot share it. We get source code, which is very good and
much better than getting "binary only". People who ship "source for
non-commercial use" are very close to "Open Source", but that is not
exactly "Open Source". This is similar to shareware, but you get the
source code, much better I think. If I had a product that I didn't want
to release as "Open Source", this might be a model I chose. I hope people
can make money from it, they may get some "Open Source" type benefits.

Todd Burroughs

---
The Internet has given us unprecedented opportunity to communicate and
share on a global scale without borders; fight to keep it that way.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

• Previous message: Martin Roesch: "[Full-Disclosure] Snort not backdoored, Sourcefire not compromised"
• In reply to: Ng Pheng Siong: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Python network security tools: Pcapy, Impacket, InlineEgg"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]