Subject: code redistribution

From: Adam Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:48:07 +0100

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

hi,

this probably gets asked from time to time, but i couldn't find anything
in the archives, so i'll ask again...

what is the status of the licence and redistributing the modified source
instead of patches?

the reason i ask is because we've recently fixed a small bug (-daemon
won't bind to an ip address on certain platforms). the way we work
internally is to use cvs, so we've put fwtk into a cvs repository. i
would like to make it available to the general public (and will add all
the other patches as well if that's useful), but only if the
licence/owner permits.

cheers,
Adam
--
Adam Laurie                   Tel: +44 (20) 8742 0755
A.L. Digital Ltd.             Fax: +44 (20) 8742 5995
Voysey House                  http://www.thebunker.net
Barley Mow Passage            http://www.aldigital.co.uk
London W4 4GB                 mailto:[email-masked]
UNITED KINGDOM                PGP key on keyservers

---

From: Keith Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:40:23 -0400

> the other patches as well if that's useful), but only if the

Adam,

Unfortunately, the license still hasn't changed; you still cannot
redistribute the source in any form.

If you have a patch (or an updated version to one of the patches on
fwtk.org) send it to me and I'll upload it on my next update.

Its too bad that NAI doesn't at least allow us to update it (even if it
isn't completely open source). 

Hmm, Rick do you still have contacts that would allow you to build a
FWTK v2.2?

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

---

From: Rick Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:40:28 -0400

>redistribute the source in any form.

Keith is right. Having multiple distribution points permits people to get 
copies of the FWTK without having to agree to the license terms first.

>Hmm, Rick do you still have contacts that would allow you to build a

Probably. If we were to put something together, I'm sure the NAI folks (TIS 
labs, probably) would be willing to put it up for FTP.
         -Rick

---

From: Tony Gale <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:20:02 +0100 (BST)

> labs, probably) would be willing to put it up for FTP.

Sounds like a good idea. I'm willing to put my patch kit forward as a
possible staring point. Doesn't cover smap as I don't use it, but
that is covered elsewhere.

-tony

---
E-Mail: Tony Gale <[email-masked]>
Are we on STRIKE yet?

The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.

---

From: Adam Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:02:53 +0100

> fwtk.org) send it to me and I'll upload it on my next update.

this is a patch that needs to be applied AFTER ipbind-1.2.patch:

---- start patch -----
--- lib/daemon.c.orig        Tue Oct 17 12:55:37 2000
+++ lib/daemon.c Sun Oct 15 16:12:18 2000
@@ -160,7 +160,8 @@
                exit(0);        /* parent exits */

-       bzero( (char *)&sa.sin_addr, sizeof(sa.sin_addr));
+       bzero( (char *)&sa, sizeof(sa));
+
        sa.sin_family = AF_INET;
        sa.sin_port = htons(port);
---- end patch -----

we suspect the problem is caused by random ipv6 stuff being left in the
uninitialised structure overriding the intended ipv4 stuff. this fix is
by Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>, btw.

cheers,
Adam

---

From: Ted Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:02:54 -0400 (EDT)

Sure would like to contribute my smap process for consideration for a next
release.  Any news would be good.

ted keller