Re: [Snort-users] Sourcefire Tactics - New Licensing

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 Licensing
>
>
>>I 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/...fo/snort-users
> Snort-users list archive:
> http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.p...st=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/...fo/snort-users
Snort-users list archive:
http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.p...st=snort-users