Subject: Re: FWTK Lic Questions

From: [email-masked] (James Seymour)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:45:14 -0400 (EDT)

[To be removed from this list send the message "unsubscribe fwtk-users" in the
BODY of a mail message to [email-masked].]

In message <[email-masked]>,
Rick Murphy <[email-masked]> wrote:
[snip]
>                                                         ... - FWTK is 
> freely usable to build a firewall for your organization; it's yours with no 
> suppport and no commercial rights (you can't sell it or charge to install 
> or support it.)
[snip]

Correct me if I'm wrong: but my reading of the license, some time back,
was that not only was one prohibited from reselling or otherwise
charging to install or support it, but that one was completely
prohibited from re-distributing it to others in any form whatsoever.

As a whimsical aside: if one is not allowed to "charge for supporting
it", and a company is in need of a consultant that understands it--for
some "out-sourced" help, does that mean the consultant can't take the
job?  For example: I've been working with Gauntlet for years.  So I
imagine I could find my way around an FWTK installation.  Say I decided
to give up my life as a masochist (Sys. & Network Admin.) and go it
alone as an independent consultant.  And a potential client calls one
day needing help with a FWTK installation (their lone staff SysAdmin is
on vacation or whatever).  Hmmm...

I surely wish NAI would "free the source" and be done with it, fer
crissakes.

Regards,
Jim
-- 
Jim Seymour                         | Medar, Inc., a Division of WTC Corp.
[email-masked]                  | 24775 Crestview Ct.
Systems, Network & TelCom Admin.    | Farmington Hills, MI. 48335
                                    | FAX: (248)477-8897

---

From: Keith Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:48:22 -0400

> prohibited from re-distributing it to others in any form whatsoever.

That is correct; in order to verify that people have read and understand
the license, they require that you agree to it in "writing" by sending
an e-mail to them.

> on vacation or whatever).  Hmmm...

The message from NAI before was that they wouldn't prosecute if you did
2-3 installations a year, but that you couldn't advertise yourself as a
"free FWTK consultant".

See the message from about a year ago by John Kelley.

> I surely wish NAI would "free the source" and be done with it, fer

They can't, since it is still being used in some contracts. I wish that
they would also, so that I can then run CVS on fwtk.org and stop putting
up patches for everything :-).

-- 
--Keith Young
-Director of Customer Care/Support, V-ONE Corp.
[email-masked]

---

From: Joseph S D Yao <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:40:09 -0400

> prohibited from re-distributing it to others in any form whatsoever.

That is my reading as well.  Of course, IANALNDIPOOTV.

> on vacation or whatever).  Hmmm...

I think you can't go around advertising yourself as an FWTK expert and
get hired for that.  But if you get hired to help fix up their network,
and one component happens to be FWTK ... that would be a different
story.  But before you do this, I would consult your legal counsel.
Isn't that sad?

> I surely wish NAI would "free the source" and be done with it, fer

Agreed but unlikely.

-- 
Joe Yao				[email-masked] - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.

---

From: Rick Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:40:52 -0400

>prohibited from re-distributing it to others in any form whatsoever.

That's what the copyright is for :-)
Actually, the distribution restrictions were put in place because people 
WERE selling FWTK systems (one individual actually installed dozens of FWTK 
firewalls and told his customers that "[email-masked]" was where they 
went for support. Some rather unhappy people resulted when they realized 
they had no support :-)
The distribution restrictions were a way of enforcing the agreement with 
the license terms before you got the software. This was made necessary by 
the folks who claimed to have never seen or read the license.

>job?

In essence, yes. In reality, you're probably not consulting in this case 
for the sole purpose of running the firewall, so while it's a gray area, 
that's probably OK. It's hard to craft legalese that captured the intent - 
use it as you see fit in your company, don't sell it, don't make money from it.

>   For example: I've been working with Gauntlet for years.  So I

Again, if this is primarily a FWTK support job, you're in violation of the 
intent.

>I surely wish NAI would "free the source" and be done with it, fer

Me too. The current restrictions keep this from being an attractive add-on 
to the filters available in BSD and Linux systems, and discourages 
open-source advocates from contributing.
         -Rick