Mailing List Archive

On 07/09/2011 12:26 AM, Andrey V. Martyanov wrote:
> Hi! I see that Immunet uses libclamav.dll. Doesn't this violate the clamav
> license?

Immunet is part of Sourcefire.

> For example, I'd like to build my own closed source commercial
> antivirus kit with the clamav engine. May I do that?

No.

Best regards,
--Edwin
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

Thanks for your explanation. And what options do I have? Clamwin uses
interprocess communication with clamscan. Is it the only option? I
found COPYING.LGPL in clamav source tree. What parts of the software are
covered under this license? Sorry, but I can't find any useful information
on the topic except clamav's GPL v2 compatibility marked on it's site.

2011/7/9 Török Edwin <edwintorok@gmail.com>

> On 07/09/2011 12:26 AM, Andrey V. Martyanov wrote:
> > Hi! I see that Immunet uses libclamav.dll. Doesn't this violate the
> clamav
> > license?
>
> Immunet is part of Sourcefire.
>
> > For example, I'd like to build my own closed source commercial
> > antivirus kit with the clamav engine. May I do that?
>
> No.
>
> Best regards,
> --Edwin
> _______________________________________________
> http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
> Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net
>
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

On 9 July 2011 08:49, Andrey V. Martyanov <realduke@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your explanation. And what options do I have? Clamwin uses
> interprocess communication with clamscan. Is it the only option? I
> found COPYING.LGPL in clamav source tree. What parts of the software are
> covered under this license? Sorry, but I can't find any useful information
> on the topic except clamav's GPL v2 compatibility marked on it's site.
>

You could release your software as free software? If ClamAV has saved
you from writing your own engine then surely you could return the
favour?

Remember free/open-source doesn't mean no cost...

Chris
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

My company prefer closed source strategy, there are several reasons. Yes,
ClamAV can save us from writing custom engine. Our goal is to develop
all-in-one antivirus solution (realtime scanner, update manager etc). Now
it's unreasonable to build custom anti-virus engine, signature bases, memory
scanner and all the stuff. The best solution is to attach the libclamav and
to use the native antivirus bases. But we don't want to violate the GPL
license. LGPL can save us, but it's unclear which parts of ClamAV
destributed under the LGPL license.

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 9 July 2011 08:49, Andrey V. Martyanov <realduke@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for your explanation. And what options do I have? Clamwin uses
> > interprocess communication with clamscan. Is it the only option? I
> > found COPYING.LGPL in clamav source tree. What parts of the software are
> > covered under this license? Sorry, but I can't find any useful
> information
> > on the topic except clamav's GPL v2 compatibility marked on it's site.
> >
>
> You could release your software as free software? If ClamAV has saved
> you from writing your own engine then surely you could return the
> favour?
>
> Remember free/open-source doesn't mean no cost...
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
> Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net
>
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

On 9 July 2011 11:50, Andrey V. Martyanov <realduke@gmail.com> wrote:
> My company prefer closed source strategy, there are several reasons. Yes,
> ClamAV can save us from writing custom engine. Our goal is to develop
> all-in-one antivirus solution (realtime scanner, update manager etc). Now
> it's unreasonable to build custom anti-virus engine, signature bases, memory
> scanner and all the stuff. The best solution is to attach the libclamav and
> to use the native antivirus bases. But we don't want to violate the GPL
> license. LGPL can save us, but it's unclear which parts of ClamAV
> destributed under the LGPL license.
>

The usual protocol is to approach the copyright holders and negotiate
an alternative license.

You'll have more luck on:

https://clamsupport.sourcefire.com/

Chris
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

Am 09.07.2011 12:50, schrieb Andrey V. Martyanov:
> My company prefer closed source strategy, there are several reasons. Yes,
> ClamAV can save us from writing custom engine. Our goal is to develop
> all-in-one antivirus solution (realtime scanner, update manager etc). Now
> it's unreasonable to build custom anti-virus engine, signature bases, memory
> scanner and all the stuff. The best solution is to attach the libclamav and
> to use the native antivirus bases. But we don't want to violate the GPL
> license. LGPL can save us, but it's unclear which parts of ClamAV
> destributed under the LGPL license.

The documentation states rather clearly that LibClamAV is GPL, not LGPL.
See http://www.clamav.net/doc/latest/html/node35.html.

Why don't you run the ClamAV daemon unaltered (you could even start it
from your software) and then use the well documented interface for
scanning? (see http://www.clamav.net/doc/latest/html/node28.html).

There is no performance penality in that, and when using file descriptor
passing on Unix, it is indeed very fast.


>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9 July 2011 08:49, Andrey V. Martyanov <realduke@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for your explanation. And what options do I have? Clamwin uses
>>> interprocess communication with clamscan. Is it the only option? I
>>> found COPYING.LGPL in clamav source tree. What parts of the software are
>>> covered under this license? Sorry, but I can't find any useful
>> information
>>> on the topic except clamav's GPL v2 compatibility marked on it's site.
>>>
>>
>> You could release your software as free software? If ClamAV has saved
>> you from writing your own engine then surely you could return the
>> favour?
>>
>> Remember free/open-source doesn't mean no cost...
>>
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
>> Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net
>>
> _______________________________________________
> http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
> Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

>
> The documentation states rather clearly that LibClamAV is GPL, not LGPL.
> See http://www.clamav.net/doc/latest/html/node35.html.
>
Yes, but if you look at the root of the ClamAV source tree you'll see
the COPYING.LGPL file. It's unclear what is the purpose of that file.



>
> Why don't you run the ClamAV daemon unaltered (you could even start it
> from your software) and then use the well documented interface for
> scanning? (see http://www.clamav.net/doc/latest/html/node28.html).
>
> There is no performance penality in that, and when using file descriptor
> passing on Unix, it is indeed very fast.

Now this is the most valuable approach, but attaching libclamav is better
in several ways. Especially better integration and control.
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

>
> The usual protocol is to approach the copyright holders and negotiate
> an alternative license.

It's not a good idea. The project is relatively small and doesn't involve a
lot of funding.
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

On 07/09/2011 03:49 PM, Andrey V. Martyanov wrote:
>>
>> The documentation states rather clearly that LibClamAV is GPL, not LGPL.
>> See http://www.clamav.net/doc/latest/html/node35.html.
>>
> Yes, but if you look at the root of the ClamAV source tree you'll see
> the COPYING.LGPL file. It's unclear what is the purpose of that file.

You'll also see a COPYING file, and various other COPYING.* files.
Look at each individual file in libclamav/ to find out which one is GPL, LGPL, BSD, etc.
ClamAV as a whole is GPLv2.

Best regards,
--Edwin
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net