Re: Abacus Portsentry License

[Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu>]

Comments below refer to the DFSG at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.

Rene Mayrhofer <rmayr@vianova.at> writes:

   **********************************************************************
   THIS SOFTWARE CONTAINS CONCEPTS AND TECHNIQUES THAT ARE PATENT PENDING
   **********************************************************************

Patent infringement will make the software non-free.

[...]
   All software, papers, and other works of information are being 
   licensed for use as laid out in the terms of this agreement and 
   remain the property and copyright of the author except where noted
   otherwise. These works may not to be used in part or in whole of a 
   commercial product offering without express written consent from 
   the author.

Violates DFSG #6.  Making commercial products is a field of endeavor.

   Permission is granted to modify source code for personal 
   use only. DISTRIBUTION OF MODIFIED SOURCE CODE WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S
   PERMISSION IS PROHIBITED.

Violates DFSG #3 and #4.

   Distribution 

   All distributed software, papers, and other works are free to use by 
   any individual, organization, or commercial venture as long as the 
   above conditions are agreed to. This software may be included with any 
   freely distributed Operating System provided it is not sold separately or as
   part of a "security bundle" or similar packaging.

Violates DFSG #1.  Making a "security bundle" is a form of
aggregation.

   Scope 

   This disclaimer supercedes all previous licensing/disclaimers either 
   oral or written. Direct any questions to the author. 

`supersedes' is misspelled.

[...]
   -----------------------------------------------
   And here the written statement from the autor (it was a reply to some
   questions I mailed him - anything that does not have to do with the license has
   been cut out):      

   > I am planning to make
   > Debian Linux packages of them (Sentry, Logcheck). However, the license was not
   > clear to me. Do you allow packages to be made, including the minor
   > modifications on scripts and Makefiles to make them work with Debian ?

   The point of the license is really to prevent unauthorized modifications
   to the source that I'm not aware of. Because they are security tools I
   need to be very careful about what changes are made to them so no holes
   are introduced. I don't have a problem with packages being made, I'll even
   put links to them on the web pages.

This doesn't address most of the points above.

   > Also I am building a Linux based firewall (actually, a secured distribution
   > based on Debian - it will be distributed under the GPL) and I am not sure if
   > you allow your tools to be included in such a package. 
   <snip>
   I would allow for this as long as you aren't selling a "Linux security
   package" or similar bundle that is based solely on my tools. I want to
   avoid people charging money for my tools (which are free). If you are
   using them as part of a free distribution I wouldn't have a problem with
   you using the tools at all.

Still in violation of DFSG #1.

   <snip>
   Thanks, let me know if you have any other questions. You can see I'm not
   that strict, I just want to avoid unauthorized modifications and people
   selling the tools directly.
   [...]

This will have to go to non-free.
-- 
"MONO - Monochrome Emulation
 This field is used to store your favorite bit."
--FreeVGA Attribute Controller Reference