Snort mailing list archives
Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing
From: "Peter J Manis" <pmanis () comcast net>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:06:30 -0500
Ok. Before I get a billion replies bashing me.1. I sent out my original email before Mary sent out a second email stating Snort will alwasy be free. 2. I felt skeptical about the Bleeding Snort digest email I got saying Sourcefire contacted Bleeding Snort about creating one source, which is my opinion and I am entitled to have it. A one stop shop is always nice in theory, but in practice, I believe it is a good thing to have many sources. 3. I paid out of my own pocket and did attend both the Sourcefire Snort IDS and Sourcefire Rules classes. I think that the extremely expensive prices for those classes that I paid should be plenty for me giving back to Marty and Sourcefire. I have the Sourcefire certificates to prove this, and im sure my name is in Sourcfire's files as well. 4. I applaud and am grateful for the effort Marty and Sourcefire have provided over the years. The comment about the opensource community being a large part of the success of Snort and Sourcefire is a true statement. It was also an echo from an email I recieved from the WinSnort mailing list. Eveyone has put time and effort into Snort. 5. My intention for speaking is just to point out the bads in what this licensing venture can create. I am neither trying to defame Sourcefire nor Marty. I think Marty is an individual to be envied and appreciated. However, people need to understand that Sourcefire in itself may or may not have a conflict of interest because it is indeed a firm trying to make a profit. What is in the best interest for Sourcefire may not necessarily be the best interest of the opensource community. And I say once again, I am NOT taking one side or the other, just pointing out possible problems. I appolige if I offended anyone in my previous email if the message in my previous email was a little strong.
Peter----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Schmehl" <pauls () utdallas edu>
To: "'Snort Users Postings'" <snort-users () lists sourceforge net> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [Snort-users] Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter J Manis" <pmanis () comcast net> To: <spamtrap () winsnort com>; "'Snort Users Postings'" <snort-users () lists sourceforge net>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [Snort-users] Sourcefire Tactics - New LicensingI agree. This is sad. Essentially, what is happening here is taking the open out of the opensource.Don't be silly.Have you ever given any thought to what open source means? It means that you get to use, for free, something that someone else has spent time and effort and expertise on, with no compensation other than the pleasure of knowing that it benefits you and others.First the rules from Sourcefire, and now they are trying to take Bleeding Snort.And you think this because?I understand if Sourcefire is upset about a few individuals using their rules, but what business do they have attempting to take Bleeding Snort under their control? This is clearly a coorporation hoax to monopolize the development of Snort rules, first by licensing the Sourcefire rules, and now trying to get Bleeding Snort to abide by their licenses!Please! Save the dramatics for theatre class.Next will be Snort itself!Really? Marty reaffirmed Sourcefire's support for snort *and* the rules in an earlier post today. The only thing that's changed is that you get the rules for free after a brief delay. If you want them immediately, write your own, pay for theirs or find them on the internet. (It's not like it's that hard.)The end result will be the destruction of Snort in the opensource community. And I totally agree with the fact that if not for the opensource community Snort or Sourcefire would not be what it is today and to put any kind of a license on it is contradictory to its pricipal founding.Snort wouldn't be were it is today if Marty et. al. hadn't put untold hours and millions of dollars into its development. If you don't think they deserve compensation for that, then I would ask you, when you graduate, to work for free and see how long it takes for your opinion to change.A laborer is worthy of his hire. Never forget that.This is at least my opinion of the situation.Opinions are OK, but they should be based on fact, not speculation and innuendo.Please do us all a favor and trim your replies. Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu/ ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Snort-users mailing list Snort-users () lists sourceforge net Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users Snort-users list archive:http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Snort-users mailing list Snort-users () lists sourceforge net Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users Snort-users list archive: http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users
Current thread:
- Demarc Certified Open Signatures Demarc Security (Mar 02)
- Re: Demarc Certified Open Signatures Bamm Visscher (Mar 02)
- RE: Demarc Certified Open Signatures Bob Konigsberg (Mar 02)
- RE: Demarc Certified Open Signatures Michael Steele (Mar 02)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Peter J Manis (Mar 02)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Frank Knobbe (Mar 02)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Peter J Manis (Mar 02)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Paul Schmehl (Mar 02)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Peter J Manis (Mar 02)
- RE: Demarc Certified Open Signatures Bob Konigsberg (Mar 02)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing James Riden (Mar 03)
- RE: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Michael Steele (Mar 03)
- RE: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Theodore Stout (Mar 04)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Martin Roesch (Mar 04)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Paul Schmehl (Mar 04)
- Re: Demarc Certified Open Signatures Bamm Visscher (Mar 02)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Brian (Mar 04)
- Re: Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing Kevin Johnson (Mar 04)
- RE: Demarc Certified Open Signatures Eric Hines (Mar 04)
- Re: Demarc Certified Open Signatures Guillaume Arcas (Mar 04)
- RE: Demarc Certified Open Signatures Esler, Joel CNTR/Sytex (Mar 04)