Does anybody know an alternative to Dan's Guaurdian? His license details are muddy. _________________________________________________________________ Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spa...
Yeah, "Dan" has some interesting ideas on how he thinks he can license things. I like the DansGuardian software, and here is basically what you need to know about its licensing: a) The software is licensed under the GPL. End of discussion. b) Dan has decided to restrict who can download the software and updates, requiring commercial users to pay for this SERVICE (not the software). c) Dan has requested that people do not offer the software for download on unofficial mirrors. Technically, once you have a copy under the GPL, you have all of the rights guaranteed under the GPL. So, if you download it to use at home (non-commercial), then you have complied with his restriction on service. You now have all of the rights of the GPL, so you can modify and distribute it as you please. Dan really has created a very sticky licensing situation, and a friend and I might be developing a fork in the future. There are some features we are looking at implementing that the current DG is lacking. I work at a K-12 school, and we have had a lot of crap slipping through DG lately, so we need a filtering system that is as "smart" as our kids. Let me know if you are interested in helping out on a project like this. ~Bradley Dale Beams wrote:
Does anybody know an alternative to Dan's Guaurdian? His license details are muddy.
_________________________________________________________________ Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spa...
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Thursday 14 December 2006 01:51, Bradley Hook wrote:
Yeah, "Dan" has some interesting ideas on how he thinks he can license things. I like the DansGuardian software, and here is basically what you need to know about its licensing:
I don't see any problems with this setup. It's actually a good example on how one can still charge for GPL'd software.
It's not the GPL that is muddy. It is statements such as (c) and the following; Quote "All contributions from other authors are vetted and incorporated by me (Daniel Barron). All contributors automatically hand over all copyright to me. What contributors get in return is fame, the feature they want, the bug they fixed incorporated, and a warm fuzzy feeling that they are also helping others who get the software for free." I did note that Smoothwall is listed on his website. Draw conclusions as you choose. I have looked at a few other filtering solutions and they are up front about the seperation of the software and the blacklist. The software is GPL and free, the blacklist is not. Yes, I would be interested in working on an alternative solution that works. I understand I could use DG under the GPL as I choose. but I would prefer using and improving software that is very clear GPL or very clear not.
From: Bradley Hook <bhook@kssb.net> To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: Dan's Guardian Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:51:27 -0600
Yeah, "Dan" has some interesting ideas on how he thinks he can license things. I like the DansGuardian software, and here is basically what you need to know about its licensing:
a) The software is licensed under the GPL. End of discussion.
b) Dan has decided to restrict who can download the software and updates, requiring commercial users to pay for this SERVICE (not the software).
c) Dan has requested that people do not offer the software for download on unofficial mirrors.
Technically, once you have a copy under the GPL, you have all of the rights guaranteed under the GPL. So, if you download it to use at home (non-commercial), then you have complied with his restriction on service. You now have all of the rights of the GPL, so you can modify and distribute it as you please.
Dan really has created a very sticky licensing situation, and a friend and I might be developing a fork in the future. There are some features we are looking at implementing that the current DG is lacking. I work at a K-12 school, and we have had a lot of crap slipping through DG lately, so we need a filtering system that is as "smart" as our kids. Let me know if you are interested in helping out on a project like this.
~Bradley
Dale Beams wrote:
Does anybody know an alternative to Dan's Guaurdian? His license details are muddy.
_________________________________________________________________ Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spa...
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
_________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get...
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 17:23, Dale Beams wrote:
It's not the GPL that is muddy. It is statements such as (c) and the following;
Quote "All contributions from other authors are vetted and incorporated by me (Daniel Barron). All contributors automatically hand over all copyright to me. What contributors get in return is fame, the feature they want, the bug they fixed incorporated, and a warm fuzzy feeling that they are also helping others who get the software for free."
There are a number of proprietary company websites which claim at least an unrestricted license on idea submissions. Not to say that makes it right or legal, but it's at least common-place.
Under GLP V2 Sec.2, he can release the program with GPL sections and non-GPL sections. I'm not familiar with DG but if there are clearly separate non-GLP sections (ie, the blacklist, etc) then he has a full right to ask for limitations of copying those. If contributions are sent to him without GPL notices, then he might have the right to include them in non-GLP sections of DG, but under what terms, I'm not sure. If he makes it clear that submissions are to be treated in such a manner and someone sends it to him anyway, then he might have legal grounds. If someone knowingly sends non-GLP modifications to him after he has clearly posted his intentions on how to handle them, I don't see a conflict with the GPL. If they send GLP modifications to him and he ignores the GPL requirements, then he's got issues. How many people really take the time to put the GPL notice on a quick hack or mod? If you don't, and it's not a mod to GPL portions of the code, you are at likely the mercy of whatever rights the receiver wants to claim (if they are claimed in advance, I'm sure). Jon. On 12/13/06, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 17:23, Dale Beams wrote:
It's not the GPL that is muddy. It is statements such as (c) and the following;
Quote "All contributions from other authors are vetted and incorporated by me (Daniel Barron). All contributors automatically hand over all copyright to me. What contributors get in return is fame, the feature they want, the bug they fixed incorporated, and a warm fuzzy feeling that they are also helping others who get the software for free."
There are a number of proprietary company websites which claim at least an unrestricted license on idea submissions. Not to say that makes it right or legal, but it's at least common-place. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc In the United States, *exclusive* copyright can only be transferred by an explicit written and signed agreement. Non-exclusive rights can be transferred by whatever form of contract you wish (aural, written, implied, etc.). This means that if you send code to a project with a published statement like this, they can redistribute your code under the terms of their statement. But, they can not prohibit you from doing what you wish with your code, because you still own the copyright. Unfortunately, retracting the rights you granted through your implied agreement is difficult, if not impossible. One other thing I wanted to point out is that Dan is not releasing different sections of the program under different licenses. Blacklists are data files, not program code. The entire program is licensed under GPL, but Dan has tried to create a situation where you can only obtain the program for free if you are using it for non-commercial purposes. What he is doing is legitimate, just very messy. ~Bradley Jon Pruente wrote:
Under GLP V2 Sec.2, he can release the program with GPL sections and non-GPL sections. I'm not familiar with DG but if there are clearly separate non-GLP sections (ie, the blacklist, etc) then he has a full right to ask for limitations of copying those. If contributions are sent to him without GPL notices, then he might have the right to include them in non-GLP sections of DG, but under what terms, I'm not sure. If he makes it clear that submissions are to be treated in such a manner and someone sends it to him anyway, then he might have legal grounds. If someone knowingly sends non-GLP modifications to him after he has clearly posted his intentions on how to handle them, I don't see a conflict with the GPL. If they send GLP modifications to him and he ignores the GPL requirements, then he's got issues. How many people really take the time to put the GPL notice on a quick hack or mod? If you don't, and it's not a mod to GPL portions of the code, you are at likely the mercy of whatever rights the receiver wants to claim (if they are claimed in advance, I'm sure).
Jon.
On 12/13/06, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 17:23, Dale Beams wrote:
It's not the GPL that is muddy. It is statements such as (c) and the following;
Quote "All contributions from other authors are vetted and incorporated by me (Daniel Barron). All contributors automatically hand over all copyright to me. What contributors get in return is fame, the feature they want, the bug they fixed incorporated, and a warm fuzzy feeling that they are also helping others who get the software for free." There are a number of proprietary company websites which claim at least an unrestricted license on idea submissions. Not to say that makes it right or legal, but it's at least common-place.
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
participants (4)
-
Bradley Hook -
Dale Beams -
Jon Pruente -
Luke -Jr