IPF current code under free license [LWN.net]

IPF current code under free license

Posted May 30, 2004 1:29 UTC (Sun) by bignose (subscriber, #40)
In reply to: ipfilter on GNU/Linux: Is It Finally Here? (Linux Journal) by allesfresser
Parent article: ipfilter on GNU/Linux: Is It Finally Here? (Linux Journal)

While OpenBSD did remove the IPF code because the license was at that time non-free, the author appears to have updated the license in the interim. (OpenBSD still does not include IPF, and with PF working quite well, it likely will not do so in the future.)

The current IPF code (linked from the article) has a license that appears to this reader to be free software; specifically, the IPFILTER.LICENSE file says:

 * Redistribution and use, with or without modification, in source and binary
 * forms, are permitted provided that this notice is preserved in its entirety
 * and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors.
 *
 * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
 * derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
 * copied, in part or in whole, and put under another distribution licence
 * [including the GNU Public Licence.]

The author seems to dislike the BSD license loophole (where the code can be redistributed under a different license), and has an unexplained hatred for the GNU licenses, even naming a non-existent license (the "GNU Public License"); but all these clauses appear to be free.

(Log in to post comments)

IPF current code under free license

Posted Jun 3, 2004 7:16 UTC (Thu) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

The author seems to dislike the BSD license loophole

It's not a loophole - it's quite intentional.

Interesting how this license is viral, but without requiring disclosure of source. If everyone distributing the code is required to keep the terms permitting "Redistribution ... in source and binary forms", how is it possible for a recipient to exercise this right if the source is not necessarily provided? Is it so much of a stretch to assume that if I am required to give you the right to redistribute IPF in source and binary forms, when I give it to you, that this also implies that I have to give you the source to begin with?