Ace,
The license preamble for Snort 3.0 provides some pretty concrete
examples of what we consider to be derivative works. While it's not an
exhaustive list and I don't think an exhaustive list is possible - the
preamble and Marty's public comments provide pretty clear guidance that
if you're
Mike,
It would be very much appreciated if this could get answered. I've asked
for clarification on what Sourcefire constitutes a derivative of Snort as
even the Snort 3.0 license doesn't really clarify this.
I'm sure others would appreciate the answer as well. Sourcefire is the only
one who ca
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:17:13 -0700
Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today, Snort subscribers have access to new rules produced by SourceFire
> that they release to the public after one month."
>
> Will this delayed rule release process be true for ClamAV, as well?
Hi Bill,
this question
Mike Guiterman wrote:
> I'll roll up my comments on a couple of items here and again I'm happy
> to answer any follow up questions.
>
> Contributed code: You will of course retain all copyright ownership and
> the licensing rights to any code you have contributed.
>
> Commercial Licensing: To
aCaB wrote:
> we have records for all the patches which ever made it into the code base.
> SVN (plus a lot of manual work) tells us which of those are still current.
Thank you.
Providing that Sourcefire is reasonable, I don't have a problem with
assigning copyright to any of my patches to Source
At 07:53 AM Friday, 8/17/2007, Tomasz Kojm wrote -=>
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:26:14 -0700
>Ed Kasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >lead the advancement of ClamAV and the CVD as employees of Sourcefire.
> > >Both the ClamAV engine and the signature database will remain under GPL.
> >
> > Until the
David F. Skoll wrote:
> How will you be sure you have removed all contributed code whose copyright
> is not owned by Sourcefire?
Hi David,
we have records for all the patches which ever made it into the code base.
SVN (plus a lot of manual work) tells us which of those are still current.
HtH,
aCa
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:33:18 -0400
"David F. Skoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, sounds good. Question: We ship ClamAV (plus source as required by GPL)
> with a commercial (non-GPL) product. We make use of ClamAV only
> through the clamdscan interface over a socket. Do you consider that
> t
David,
Here is the part where I tell everyone that I am not a lawyer and do not
play one on TV. Which means that IMHO unfortunately does not count. I
am happy to get the right person to answer your question and respond.
You're right that ensuring everyone's copyright is respected is
critical.
Mike Guiterman wrote:
> Commercial Licensing: Today ClamAv is used in a number of commercial
> solutions. ClamAV will continue to be licensed under GPL to vendors
> that distribute the derivative products under the GPL.
OK, sounds good. Question: We ship ClamAV (plus source as required by GP
I'll roll up my comments on a couple of items here and again I'm happy
to answer any follow up questions.
Contributed code: You will of course retain all copyright ownership and
the licensing rights to any code you have contributed.
Commercial Licensing: Today ClamAv is used in a number of co
David wrote...
> Sourcefire is a public company. As such, its directors have a
> fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of Sourcefire investors.
Pendantic mode...
Public/Private has no bearing on the issue. Private companies mostly act in
the interest of the private shareholders which is gen
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Mike Guiterman wrote:
>
> [some things]
>
> Mike, would you care to comment on these remarks from Wayne Jackson,
> CEO of Sourcefire?
>
>After a clean-up of the project's code base, Sourcefire will likely
>create a new license for third party providers of the tech
Mike Guiterman wrote:
[some things]
Mike, would you care to comment on these remarks from Wayne Jackson,
CEO of Sourcefire?
After a clean-up of the project's code base, Sourcefire will likely
create a new license for third party providers of the technology
during the first quarter of 20
Frank Elsner wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:52:56 +0100 Nigel Horne wrote:
From the FAQ:
"* Q. What is the impact on ClamAV users?
o A. From the end-user perspective, very little will change beyond
the additional resources Sourcefire will provide in our continued efforts to
advanc
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:52:56 +0100 Nigel Horne wrote:
> From the FAQ:
>
> "* Q. What is the impact on ClamAV users?
> o A. From the end-user perspective, very little will change beyond
> the additional resources Sourcefire will provide in our continued efforts to
> advance the ClamA
On 8/17/07, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> one that had the solid reputation of ClamAV. No matter what sourcefire
> does with the project, completely free or subscription driven, etc., the
> fact is that ClamAV isn't the same starting today. It's now just
> another AV product, instead of
Mike Guiterman wrote:
>
> Q. When will Sourcefire begin to integrate ClamAV technology into its
> products?
> A. Sourcefire intends to offer support and training services to ClamAV
> users beginning in Q4 2007. We anticipate offering products based on
> ClamAV as a part of our Enterprise T
Hi, Mike,
> I hope this clears it up. If not I'm happy to answer any other questions.
Thanks.
> Q. When will Sourcefire begin to integrate ClamAV technology into its
> products?
> A. Sourcefire intends to offer support and training services to ClamAV
> users beginning in Q4 2007.
OK; so no
From the FAQ hosted at http://www.sourcefire.com/products/clamav/
I hope this clears it up. If not I'm happy to answer any other questions.
Q. Will Sourcefire change the way that ClamAV open source software is
offered?
A. Sourcefire has no current plans to change the way the ClamAV
soft
Luca Gibelli schrieb:
> Hello James,
>
>> Tomasz Kojm wrote:
(...)
> Q. Will Sourcefire change the way that ClamAV open source software is
>offered?
> A. Sourcefire has no current plans to change the way the ClamAV software is
And what about future plan
Christoph Cordes wrote:
>> (Public companies don't make acquisitions for the good of the
>> community; they make them for the good of their shareholders.)
> Do you believe that the first goal excepts the other?
No, not at all! Red Hat is a clear example of the synergy that is
possible.
However
Am 17.08.2007 um 17:59 schrieb David F. Skoll:
> (Public companies don't make acquisitions for the good of the
> community; they make them for the good of their shareholders.)
Do you believe that the first goal excepts the other? ClamAV and the
Community around it has some experience with doin
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> you should rest assured that the virus database will stay GPL and will be
> distributed the same way as so far, Sourcefire has no intention of changing
> this.
That's somewhat comforting.
Sourcefire is a public company. As such, its directors have a
fiduciary duty to act in
Hello James,
> Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> >>> Both the ClamAV engine and the signature database will remain under GPL.
> >> Until they start charging for current updates, etc. like they do with
> >> Snort...
> > you should rest assured that the virus database will stay GPL and will be
[snip]
> I'm comp
From the FAQ:
"* Q. What is the impact on ClamAV users?
o A. From the end-user perspective, very little will change beyond the
additional resources Sourcefire will provide in our continued efforts to advance the
ClamAV technology and improve our ability to interact with the open sou
Am 17.08.2007 um 17:28 schrieb John Rudd:
> It's now just
> another AV product, instead of a community project. That's kind of
> sad.
Why do you think so?
As far as I'm concerned, i will still spend up to 18 hours a day on
ClamAV. I'll also continue to call Luca at 4 a.m. if i notice a
James Kosin wrote:
> I'm complaining now... because the virus database is not the source
> to build the binaries. If hey are only saying the virus database is
> the ONLY part to stay GPL we may have to pay through the nose for the
> source to build the compiled binaries!
>
> I'm HOPING this hasn
James Kosin wrote:
> Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>> Ed Kasky wrote:
>>> Tomasz Kojm wrote:
lead the advancement of ClamAV and the CVD as employees of Sourcefire.
Both the ClamAV engine and the signature database will remain under GPL.
>>>
>>> Until they start charging for current updates, etc
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> Dear ClamAV users,
>
> On August 17, Sourcefire, the creators of Snort, acquired the ClamAV project.
> The full announcement is available here:
>
> http://www.sourcefire.com/products/clamav/
>
> We'd like to thank everyone in the ClamAV community for their dedication to
> th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:26:14 -0700
> Ed Kasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> lead the advancement of ClamAV and the CVD as employees of Sourcefire.
>>> Both the ClamAV engine and the signature database will remain under GPL.
>>
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:26:14 -0700
Ed Kasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >lead the advancement of ClamAV and the CVD as employees of Sourcefire.
> >Both the ClamAV engine and the signature database will remain under GPL.
>
> Until they start charging for current updates, etc. like they do with
>
At 04:00 AM Friday, 8/17/2007, Tomasz Kojm wrote -=>
>Dear ClamAV users,
>
>On August 17, Sourcefire, the creators of Snort, acquired the ClamAV project.
>
>What's most important is that from the end-user perspective very little will
>change beyond the additional resources Sourcefire will provide i
Dear ClamAV users,
On August 17, Sourcefire, the creators of Snort, acquired the ClamAV project.
The full announcement is available here:
http://www.sourcefire.com/products/clamav/
We'd like to thank everyone in the ClamAV community for their dedication to
the project. The acquisition by Sourcef
34 matches
Mail list logo
