Re: IPFilter no more?
jhell
> so? :) did you find him? :)
> -= Mail sent through WebTop2 =-
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Da: Dennis Clarke
> A: Gabriele Bulfon
> Cc: Simon Chang
> ipfi...@coombs.anu.edu.au
> Data: 29 ottobre 2010 18.59.42 CEST
> Oggetto: Re: IPFilter no more?
> End of August -End of October is a very long vacation! :)
> Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l.
> Easy .. I'll pick up the phone and give him a call.
> I'll let you know what I hear .. if anything.
> --
> Dennis Clarke
> dcl...@opensolaris.ca
> dcl...@blastwave.org
>
At this point as long as Darren works for Oracle, his thoughts and any
work he generates at this time belongs to Oracle... so in the least
amount of words, you would not want Darren to contribute anything to
ipfilter right now as it would ultimately be owned by Oracle.
So... fork it, or otherwise its dead in the water unless Darren finds a
way to contribute to it without jeopardizing its integrity.
http://marc.info/?l=ipfilter&m=127340750503475&w=2
--
jhell,v
Simon Chang
At this point as long as Darren works for Oracle, his thoughts and any
work he generates at this time belongs to Oracle... so in the least
amount of words, you would not want Darren to contribute anything to
ipfilter right now as it would ultimately be owned by Oracle.
So... fork it, or otherwise its dead in the water unless Darren finds a
way to contribute to it without jeopardizing its integrity.
http://marc.info/?l=ipfilter&m=127340750503475&w=2
--
jhell,v
Here is the thing: Even if Darren can no longer maintain ipfilter, what does it cost him to put a word on the main website saying so? He doesn't even really need to elaborate why. All he has to do is say something like "forks are welcome - goodbye and good luck", and he can get this off his back.
SC
jhell
>>
>> At this point as long as Darren works for Oracle, his thoughts and any
>> work he generates at this time belongs to Oracle... so in the least
>> amount of words, you would not want Darren to contribute anything to
>> ipfilter right now as it would ultimately be owned by Oracle.
>>
>> So... fork it, or otherwise its dead in the water unless Darren finds a
>> way to contribute to it without jeopardizing its integrity.
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=ipfilter&m=127340750503475&w=2
>>
>> --
>>
>> jhell,v
>>
>
> That's a shame, because I believe I recently confirmed a problem report that
> is still gathering dust in the FreeBSD database and not responded to. The
> problem states that the "portmap" directive does not work properly, and we
> have network dumps of the command shredding our packets as they transit the
> firewall.
>
I think Ive seen that same bug at some point but ultimately wound up
migrating to OpenBSD pf41 that is in FreeBSD now. Unfortunately there
does not seem to be a portable filtering solution that spans across the
BSD's and other OS's ;( like what IPFilter did. Would have been nice if
some of the features that were in pf41 could have been integrated into
IPFilter too.
> Here is the thing: Even if Darren can no longer maintain ipfilter, what
> does it cost him to put a word on the main website saying so? He doesn't
> even really need to elaborate why. All he has to do is say something like
> "forks are welcome - goodbye and good luck", and he can get this off his
> back.
>
> SC
>
I suppose doing something like that would be similiar to a mother trying
to say goodbye to her baby. But Darren also said that he was looking
into possibilities to still maintain it and probably has not come to
that yet. We'll just hope that comes about sometime or another.
--
jhell,v
Darren Reed
intellectual property (i.e copyright) for all of the work that I would do.
*I* have a problem with that given that I would be doing it on my time
and it would be me handing out freebies to a very wealthy man/company.
Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> The question is not if Darren intends, but if Oracle still permits
> Darren to continue open development.
> My fear is that we'll have another fork...
>
> -= Mail sent through WebTop2 =-
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *Da:* Simon Chang <sect...@gmail.com>
> *A:* ipfi...@coombs.anu.edu.au
> *Data:* 29 ottobre 2010 9.18.41 CEST
> *Oggetto:* Re: IPFilter no more?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Summum Bonum <s...@geekhouse.org
> <mailto:s...@geekhouse.org>> wrote:
>
> Yeah.. I am wondering about that too. Where is Darren Reed? I
> did a cvs
> on the latest branch, and there is no update for a while.
>
> I am about to rip out the public version of ip filter replace
> with the
> official Sun/Oracle version. Look like that is the supported
> version
> going forward for us Sun admin.. Just upgraded to Solaris 10
> update 9,
> and I don't bother to it against 5.1.0 :(
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Long time ipfilter user, but first time posting on the mailing
> list. I have various versions of FreeBSD running ipf 4.1.28, and I
> have been frustrated by the fact that the documentation seems
> muddled and confusing regarding the exact compilation procedure
> for 5.1.0.
>
> Also, yes, based on the list volume that I checked, this list
> seems to be *VERY* low-volume and has been that way for a while
> now. Does anyone know what the status is for ipfilter, what the
> general direction is, and whether Darren intends to continue
> development?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon Chang
>
Darren Reed
>
>
> At this point as long as Darren works for Oracle, his thoughts and any
> work he generates at this time belongs to Oracle... so in the least
> amount of words, you would not want Darren to contribute anything to
> ipfilter right now as it would ultimately be owned by Oracle.
>
> So... fork it, or otherwise its dead in the water unless Darren
> finds a
> way to contribute to it without jeopardizing its integrity.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=ipfilter&m=127340750503475&w=2
> <http://marc.info/?l=ipfilter&m=127340750503475&w=2>
>
> --
>
> jhell,v
>
>
> That's a shame, because I believe I recently confirmed a problem
> report that is still gathering dust in the FreeBSD database and not
> responded to. The problem states that the "portmap" directive does
> not work properly, and we have network dumps of the command shredding
> our packets as they transit the firewall.
>
> what does it cost him to put a word on the main website saying so? He
> doesn't even really need to elaborate why. All he has to do is say
> something like "forks are welcome - goodbye and good luck", and he can
> get this off his back.
Folks don't even need to fork it.
There's a sourceforge project with CVS for ipfilter...
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ipfilter/
If someone wants to directly contribute patches, etc, into the
sourceforge CVS then I can easily add them as required.
Darren
Jim Klimov
> Oracle has no problems with me doing it but would own all of the
> intellectual property (i.e copyright) for all of the work that I would
> do.
> *I* have a problem with that given that I would be doing it on my time
> and it would be me handing out freebies to a very wealthy man/company.
And, if that's not a secret, can you shed some light on such question as
how did it work with Sun?
They did not claim any copyright on *your* work, and simply forked an
ipfilter (like anyone else can) to which they might have such rights?
And on the opposite, can't you maintain IPFilter as a part of your paid
job - albeit IP (to these patches) would now belong to Oracle? Or would
that possibly threaten the open-source project? They can't change the
license to code that existed and was in the open before you even worked
for Sun, right?
--
+============================================================+
| |
| Климов Евгений, Jim Klimov |
| технический директор CTO |
| ЗАО "ЦОС и ВТ" JSC COS&HT |
| |
| +7-903-7705859 (cellular) mailto:jimk...@cos.ru |
| CC:ad...@cos.ru,jimk...@mail.ru |
+============================================================+
| () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail |
| /\ - against microsoft attachments |
+============================================================+
Joseph S. Dietz, Jr.
Maybe consider how SNORT does things? SNORT is open source, Sourcefire
is pay for product...I do believe Sourcefire does own the intellectual
tech these days...if that is the sticking point, I understand.
Thank you for all your efforts over the years,
Joe
Darren Reed
> Hi Darren, happy to read you again :)
>
> I find it absurd that you can't use your spare time for your own stuff.
> Does it mean that if you write 2 lines of code at 2:00am in your
> house, that is still Oracle's IP???
> It's madness!
As long as it relates to something in which they have business
interests, then yes.
For example, if I made a patch to the Linux kernel to fix a bug at home,
Oracle would own that IP (consider Oracle Enterprise Linux) even though
I don't work on OEL. On the other hand, if I were to patch FreeBSD for a
similar reason, Oracle would still own that because I would be working
on an "operating system" and Oracle is in the business of manufacturing
"operating systems" (Solaris & OEL.)
Darren
>
> -= Mail sent through WebTop2 =-
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Da: Darren Reed <dar...@reed.wattle.id.au>
> A: Gabriele Bulfon <gbu...@sonicle.com>
> Cc: Simon Chang <sect...@gmail.com> ipfi...@coombs.anu.edu.au
> Data: 4 novembre 2010 6.11.11 CET
> Oggetto: Re: IPFilter no more?
>
> Oracle has no problems with me doing it but would own all of the
> intellectual property (i.e copyright) for all of the work that I
> would do.
> *I* have a problem with that given that I would be doing it on my
> time
> and it would be me handing out freebies to a very wealthy man/company.
>
>
Darren Reed
> 2010-11-04 8:11, Darren Reed wrote:
>> intellectual property (i.e copyright) for all of the work that I
>> would do.
>> *I* have a problem with that given that I would be doing it on my
>> time and it would be me handing out freebies to a very wealthy
>> man/company.
>
> as how did it work with Sun?
From certain perspectives, it would appear that Sun (as a company)
valued its employees in a vastly different way than what Oracle (as a
company) does.
For example, at Sun there were posters around the building that pointed
out that the company's greatest asset was you (the employee.) At Oracle
we have "building police" that remove electrical appliances (such as bar
fridges that belong to employees) from offices because they are not
"Oracle approved" (of course this could be normal and that at Sun the
atmosphere was much more relaxed.) The Oracle mail server is called "the
bee hive" - you can make up your own analogies on that one.
As a result of that, Sun was much more accomodating to its employees and
thus at the time of employment Sun was open to reviewing changes to the
standard employment contract.
> They did not claim any copyright on *your* work, and simply forked an
> ipfilter (like anyone else can) to which they might have such rights?
Something like that, yes, where Sun held the copyright to changes that
Sun made.
> And on the opposite, can't you maintain IPFilter as a part of your
> paid job - albeit IP (to these patches) would now belong to Oracle?
I could, yes.
> Or would that possibly threaten the open-source project? They can't
> change the license to code that existed and was in the open before you
> even worked for Sun, right?
So what would happen is that over the course of a year or two, IPFilter
would evolve, along with patches, to become a thing that was owned by
Oracle unless you stripped away all of the patches, etc, that bore the
Oracle copyright to dig down to the "Darren Reed" copyright. That feels
wrong in some very basic way that I'm not sure I can explain.
Darren
Jaroslaw Rafa
> > I find it absurd that you can't use your spare time for your own stuff.
> > Does it mean that if you write 2 lines of code at 2:00am in your
> > house, that is still Oracle's IP???
> > It's madness!
>
> As long as it relates to something in which they have business
> interests, then yes.
>
> For example, if I made a patch to the Linux kernel to fix a bug at home,
> Oracle would own that IP (consider Oracle Enterprise Linux) even though
> I don't work on OEL. On the other hand, if I were to patch FreeBSD for a
> similar reason, Oracle would still own that because I would be working
> on an "operating system" and Oracle is in the business of manufacturing
> "operating systems" (Solaris & OEL.)
My sincere apologies to you because of that.
I wonder whether a company has any legal right at all to restrict the
freedom of their employees in such a way?
After all, you are an employee during your working hours only. It is clear
that what you do *as a part of your job* belongs to the employer. But after
you finish that, you are a free man and whatever you do is your thing only.
I can't see any legal ground for your employer to claim the ownership of
whathever you do in your free time. Essentially speaking, such taking the
ownership of your private work out from you is simply - theft.
Yes, I know they are Oracle and have a lot of money for the lawyers ;), but
even with that I think it can be proven in court that writing such clauses
in employee's contracts is clearly against the law, as it seems to violate
basic citizen's rights.
Regards,
Jaroslaw Rafa
r...@ap.krakow.pl
--
Zapraszam na moja strone: http://www.ap.krakow.pl/~raj/
Jaroslaw Rafa
>
> My sincere apologies to you because of that.
Ouch! Of course it should not be "apologies", but "sympathy"...
Pascal Gienger
> I can't see any legal ground for your employer to claim the ownership of
> whathever you do in your free time. Essentially speaking, such taking the
> ownership of your private work out from you is simply - theft.
It seems that in anglo-saxon countries like UK, USA, Australia employers
are much more free to write whatever they want in the work/employment
contracts.
In Europe this is often different - in Germany the situation is that an
employer cannot claim automatically all IP done by his employees in
their spare time. But you have to offer it to your employer first before
you can sell it to someone else. And your employer has to pay for that
intellectual property. Many employers lost cases at the labour courts
because of this (one of the reasons anglo-saxon companies do not like
Germany).
The next thing, in my opinion it is only Darren's choice how to handle
the situation, this list is not the place to discuss about legal schemes
and situations.
Pascal
Darren Reed
> Darren Reed napisal(a):
>
>>> I find it absurd that you can't use your spare time for your own stuff.
>>> Does it mean that if you write 2 lines of code at 2:00am in your
>>> house, that is still Oracle's IP???
>>> It's madness!
>>>
>> As long as it relates to something in which they have business
>> interests, then yes.
>>
>> For example, if I made a patch to the Linux kernel to fix a bug at home,
>> Oracle would own that IP (consider Oracle Enterprise Linux) even though
>> I don't work on OEL. On the other hand, if I were to patch FreeBSD for a
>> similar reason, Oracle would still own that because I would be working
>> on an "operating system" and Oracle is in the business of manufacturing
>> "operating systems" (Solaris & OEL.)
>>
>
> freedom of their employees in such a way?
>
> After all, you are an employee during your working hours only. It is clear
> that what you do *as a part of your job* belongs to the employer. But after
> you finish that, you are a free man and whatever you do is your thing only.
>
> whathever you do in your free time. Essentially speaking, such taking the
> ownership of your private work out from you is simply - theft.
>
It is the standard employment contract that you sign that requires you to
agree to give them ownership of any intellectual property that you might
develop whilst that contract is being executed (i.e you're employed by
them), regardless of where or whence you are.
California law restricts this to being related to their business interests,
such that if I invented a new engine for a car or developed a cure for
the common cold on my own time, Oracle would have no rights to that.
Darren
Jaroslaw Rafa
>
> It is the standard employment contract that you sign that requires you to
> agree to give them ownership of any intellectual property that you might
> develop whilst that contract is being executed (i.e you're employed by
> them), regardless of where or whence you are.
I think such wording in a contract may be against the law. It surely is
illegal in most European countries, but I don't know how this looks like
where you live...
If it is legal in your country, then I can say only one thing: what a shitty
political system that gives more rights to corporations than to people... :(
jhell
Simply put so its more understandable... There is no way for a company
or individual to be able to determine that the changes you have made to
unsaid software 1.1 were not due to knowledge that you have gained while
working for so said company and was paid for.
I am sure you can agree that you would not want to pay someone to do
some work that benefits the company and then have that person give away
any advantage that you might have to your competition for free unless
you had a say in it for pre-approval.
Usually these contracts protect both the company and the people that
work for them.
--
jhell,v
Jaroslaw Rafa
>
> And what is wrong with clarifying everything in an agreement. If the
> agreement is that the company is purchasing some IP and then the seller of
> the IP decides to somehow improve it or work on it just common sense would
> point towards that effort going to the purchaser unless otherwise agreed.
But this is not the case.
In my opinion, what you wrote above refers to the case when the employer
is claiming IP to the software on which an employee works *as a part of
his/her job*. By hiring the employee to work on that particular software,
the employer "purchases" the IP. This is perfectly normal.
In Darren's case, the IP claim is not restricted to software they already
"purchased". His employer claims IP to ANY software he creates ANYWHERE and
ANYTIME, be it or not connected to his work.
As Darren wrote, even if he patches a BSD kernel on his home computer for
his private needs, if he wanted to release the patch, Oracle would claim IP
to it, despite they never previously did any BSD development and didn't
order anybody, and especially Darren, to do any work on BSD - so they didn't
"purchase" any IP to this software. This is abnormal.
> With your argument it would be hard to see how IP would be worth anything
> to a company or an individual if the seller could simply recreate it again
> and sell it to a competitor.
Because actually it isn't. It's only a myth that IP is "worth" anything.
What is worth, is what makes difference to the customer - and that is
quality and usability of the software. This doesn't depend directly on IP
and often has nothing to do with it.
Companies spend lots of money and effort on "guarding" IP against the
competitors (absurd patent wars being the most prominent example of this),
while they would better use that money if they spent them on eg. improving
quality assurance so the software has less bugs.
What would a customer choose: software that runs stable and doesn't crash
every two hours without a reason, or software released by a company that
possesses the mystical voodoo IP in form of 5000 patents?
Being better than your competitor - having better quality and more
- feature-rich software is a fair competition. Trying to stop your
competitor from gaining knowledge, to artificially weaken his position
without the need for you to really improve, is an unfair competition. It's
like an athlete who - instead of concentrating on his own training, to run
faster than his opponents - thinks of ways to make his opponents somehow run
slower... I don't respect businesses that operate this way.
Shaun T. Erickson
-ste
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 6, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa <r...@ap.krakow.pl> wrote:
> Darren Reed napisal(a):
>>
>> It is the standard employment contract that you sign that requires you to
>> agree to give them ownership of any intellectual property that you might
>> develop whilst that contract is being executed (i.e you're employed by
>> them), regardless of where or whence you are.
>
> I think such wording in a contract may be against the law. It surely is
> illegal in most European countries, but I don't know how this looks like
> where you live...
> If it is legal in your country, then I can say only one thing: what a shitty
> political system that gives more rights to corporations than to people... :(