Re: IP transparent proxies (source).

> and get support for both from our local support company. They told me, th=
> at
> they just can't give support for fwtk because copyright reasons (my readi=
> ng
> of the copyright wasn't exactly that, but it's another issue).

I'm afraid that my reading of the copyright agrees with theirs.

> If there would be a free "fwtk", this wouldn't be a problem at all.
...
> > ... I'm not including the
> > source here yet, because I'm not sure if I'm allowed to redistribute it=
> ,
> > according to the fwtk license. I might just re-write it from scratch,
> > as it isn't too complicated, and then it could be released without
> > problems.
> Let's rewrite it from scratch. ...

You've got a "tainting" problem, in that you have read the TIS source
code. Depends on whether they're going to be as sticky about it as
AT&T's lawyers were. (If not, though, then why the copyright worded as
it is?) Best "clean room" procedures involve writing to specs without
having seen the code. Another choice, if you're already "tainted", is
to deliberately write as differently as pure memory allows - which is
what Bill Plauger did, and why Whitesmiths' C had libraries that were
so different from those of K&R C. Which, of course, may cause its own
problems, as it did in Whitesmiths' C.

--
Joe Yao				jsdy_at_cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO Computer Support						EMT-A/B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.