Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Takes Open-Source Hyperscan Development To Proprietary Licensed Software

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AlanTuring69
    replied
    Originally posted by brad0 View Post

    It's far from being almost impossible to make GPL projects proprietary. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
    elaborating:

    you cannot take a project which exists as GPL-licensed software and "pull the rug" away from what people are using. the GPL'd code will always be GPL'd, it's irrevocable, but you can apply a proprietary license to all new versions of your code. that almost never matters though and it will get forked if people are using it. it will have diff contributors of course but that's life. being a contributor is a commitment for as long as you're willing / being paid to contribute, and nothing more.

    Leave a comment:


  • gnarlin
    replied
    Originally posted by brad0 View Post

    It's far from being almost impossible to make GPL projects proprietary. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
    All you said was basically: no I disagree with you, except you did it insultingly. You explained absolutely nothing. You didn't say why you think it's easy to convert a GPL project with a large number of contributers into a proprietary project without breaching the license of all those copyright holders. Maybe you are thinking of projects in which everyone has to sign away their copyright to a single entity or company in order for their patches to be merged, but that is the minority of GPL projects. I do know what I'm talking about while you said absolutely nothing of substance. Maybe your next reply will be: LOL.

    Leave a comment:


  • LtdJorge
    replied
    There's always https://crates.io/crates/regex-automata (also just the regex crate, which is a bit higher level, but r-a is more in line with hyperscan I guess). And https://crates.io/crates/aho-corasick too, which regex-automata uses when "perf" feature is enabled.

    Leave a comment:


  • LtdJorge
    replied
    Originally posted by sandain View Post

    Lol. Tell us you have no idea how software licenses work without actually telling us. It is their software. It could have been written using any license under the sun, including GPL, and they would still be allowed to relicense it to _whatever_ they want. Any BSD licensed version is still BSD licensed and available for forking as has already been done.
    Volta is a known troll

    Leave a comment:


  • Volta
    replied
    Originally posted by brad0 View Post

    It's far from being almost impossible to make GPL projects proprietary. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
    It doesn't matter. You can always fork such project and proprietary entity can only look at your patches. If it's BSD they can take everything they want, so you and your contributors are working for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Volta
    replied
    Originally posted by sandain View Post

    Lol. Tell us you have no idea how software licenses work without actually telling us. It is their software. It could have been written using any license under the sun, including GPL, and they would still be allowed to relicense it to _whatever_ they want. Any BSD licensed version is still BSD licensed and available for forking as has already been done.
    You're making fool of yourself, because you're missing the entire point (but you're not alone ). Now Intel can take any patch it wants from the fork. What a genius [shit] BSD license.
    Last edited by Volta; 13 May 2024, 06:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flaburgan
    replied
    Comments here are focusing on economics reasons to why they are making it closed source. But when I readtm the description of the lib in Michael post:

    >It is suitable for usage scenarios such as deep packet inspection (DPI)

    I have my own idea why they don't want us to read the code anymore...

    Leave a comment:


  • moltonel
    replied
    Originally posted by pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx View Post
    This thing must be hella performant if they are switching it to a closed source paid library. I can't imagine there's a shortage of regex libraries out there, so it must have a niche it fills.
    It generally has very good run-time, and very bad compile-time. It's an amazing engine for a handful of niche cases, but would be a poor choice as a default engine. As always, it depends on the regex, corpus, matching method, and hardware.

    Still, I can't imagine they'll sell many licenses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kjell
    replied
    Originally posted by WileEPyote View Post

    This comment makes no sense. How are they helping Intel? It's not like they're going out to buy the locked down hyperscan.
    Sentiment.

    Yes, Intel has every right to do whatever they please with their intellectual property. We have no say in their decision making, like re-licensing or if it's made private. They own it.

    However, what we can control is the sentiment. Don't defend a multi-billion dollar company.

    Leave a comment:


  • WileEPyote
    replied
    Originally posted by Kjell View Post

    Alright buddy

    It's hard to reason with programmed individuals like you.

    Keep bending over for the big guys
    You clearly like it
    This comment makes no sense. How are they helping Intel? It's not like they're going out to buy the locked down hyperscan.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X