IANAL, so I need somebody to help me review this license to see if we can include software licensed by this.
I'm going to put up a package review request for metasploit version 2.5, as the 2.x tree is licensed with Perl Artistic/GPL, however the developmental branch, metasploit 3.0 is licensed with a new license to try and protect themselves from the difficulties recently experienced by nessus and snort.
Can you look over http://www.metasploit.com/projects/Framework/msf3/download.html?Release=alph... for The Metasploit Framework License v1.0 ?
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:09:35PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
Can you look over http://www.metasploit.com/projects/Framework/msf3/download.html?Release=alph... for The Metasploit Framework License v1.0 ?
Without going into legal technicalities, that license clearly has the following problems:
- Commercial use restricted (2b) -- Can't be used in any commercial application or product.
- Anti-forking clause (4) -- Modifications must be distributed separately, as patches -- no forking. Technically, that's what good RPMs do anyway, but this doesn't meet the normal standards for Free or Open Source software.
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:09:35PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
Can you look over http://www.metasploit.com/projects/Framework/msf3/download.html?Release=alph... for The Metasploit Framework License v1.0 ?
Without going into legal technicalities, that license clearly has the following problems:
- Commercial use restricted (2b) -- Can't be used in any commercial application or product.
Yep. This one is a deal-breaker for inclusion in Fedora.
-- Rex
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 13:22 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Without going into legal technicalities, that license clearly has the following problems:
- Commercial use restricted (2b) -- Can't be used in any commercial application or product.
Yep. This one is a deal-breaker for inclusion in Fedora.
Ok, they were afraid of that, but knew it was a possibility. However they really want to prevent incorporation of the framework into a commercial product. They really just don't want people to sell it, even if they contribute back. Oh well, the 2.5 tree is usable and has an acceptable license.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 13:22 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Without going into legal technicalities, that license clearly has the following problems:
- Commercial use restricted (2b) -- Can't be used in any commercial application or product.
Yep. This one is a deal-breaker for inclusion in Fedora.
Ok, they were afraid of that, but knew it was a possibility. However they really want to prevent incorporation of the framework into a commercial product.
That's unfortunate. It's #1 on the opensource criteria on opensource.org:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software...
-- Rex
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jesse Keating -
Jesse Keating -
Matthew Miller -
Rex Dieter