Re: Funny note here on a worm

[Jason <security () brvenik com>]

Kyle Quest wrote:
> > I don't have any issues with Sourcefire charging for the
> > rules updates and if folks want to chat about it on this
> > list, I can save us all a lot of time by posting the for/against
> > threads from the various Nessus, Snort, vuln-watch mailing
> > lists.
>
>
> I don't care if they charge for the rules either.
> What's sad is how this GPL project is changing...
> especially how the GPL rules all of a sudden became
> SourceFire rules. What's sad is how the business
> people are exploiting the project. This why they
> have this silly advisory about the worm being developed.
> This is pure marketing talk to make SourceFire 
> ,as a company, sound important.


Fair enough that you think that. What is sad is that there are a lot of 
people out there that would take the work of others and use it, without 
so much as attribution, and claim it as their own.

> Now to address what Jason wrote:
>
>
> > I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion.
>
>
> I know how the marketing talk sounds. You can recognize
> it based on how it's worded and how much information 
> is provided. It takes practice to recognize this
> kind of thing.

heh. It may sound like marketing speak but I'm hesitant to believe that 
it is purely driven by business. The people involved don't operate that 
way and I will be personally disappointed if that ends up being the case.

> > I think Sourcefire has done a great job to date
> > and I expect that to continue.
>
>
> I'm not saying that they haven't, but you should
> realize yourself that like in any commercial
> company you are dealing with different forces.
> On one hand, you got technical guys who are doing
> great things for Snort and, on the other hand,
> you have business guys who are trying to make
> money any way they can... exploiting anything
> they can...

You may believe that is true but it is not. A significant number of 
people at Sourcefire joined because of the community and Snort. They are 
very committed to maintaining the community and open nature of snort and 
there is a very clear line drawn between the community and commercial 
interests. Rules are still released to the community for free as a 
direct result of this commitment. There was a need to protect the hard 
work of many from companies that are only interested in exploiting 
anything they can.

> > Snort is the same as it has always been. Snort is released under the
> > GPL. When you go to work for free and spend millions of dollars and
> > man-hours developing a technology that others think they own you might
> > understand the rules licensing change.
>
>
> Two words for you: "Linux kernel".

Excellent. So you were happy to see Linksys have to publish it's stuff. 
quid pro quo is the simple rule applied here.

_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunitysec com
https://lists.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave