On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 02:50:15 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesper Juhl) wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Rembrandt wrote: > > [...] > > 2. > > Are there any improvemts planed wich enable clamAV to clean files? > > Now it just delete them. > > > I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't think that is > planned. First of all, some virii may be impossible to clean (some of > them destroy the files they infect). > Second, some files may be *very* hard to clean since the virii > rewrite the binary in order to insert itself and figuring out what the > file looked like prior to infection is *not* trivial, so it's a hard > problem and to do it requires a lot of time and often specific > handling of each individual virus. > Third, would you trust a file after it was "cleaned"? Personally I > would not - no matter who cleaned it; clam or some commercial AV > vendor doesn't matter, I still wouldn't trust that file. If an > infected file is found, the only proper action in my oppinion is to > delete the file and then restore a known-good copy from original media > or backup. I think you've to wath on both sides of the medal. Yes I would trust cleaned files but why dosn't matter here. The situation you've to think about: What's whenn all possible backups and copies are infected? I know guys wich are working as administrators at a newspaper. They make backups.. yes.. But they make it only for 1 week (couse there's too much data). So they're able to restore all files wich changed since date X. But what's about a virii wich infects the files and waits until a special date? Or what's about logic-bombs? Trust me: I'm able to think about a virii wich is more destructive then all over together. So I think such a function is needed. > > 3. > > Please don't make a flamewar (!!!!) but: > > > > Why GPL? > > I think clamAV could also use a more free license like the > > BSD-license couse nobody steals something from clamAV. And the > > reason is easy: All other commercial scanners detects more > > virii/worms and they could also clean the most files. So why GPL and > > not BSD-License? I think with the BSD-License clamAV could be more > > acceptable for more people. Not just all current BSD-OSs (NetBSD, > > FreeBSD, OpenBSD, MirBSD, MicroBSD...). There much more people wich > > prefer BSD-Licensed code and wich strictly against GPL (such as > > Plan9 and other OSs). > > > Again, I can only answer this from my own personal point of view - I > didn't write the original code so I did not deside the license. > My /personal/ oppinion is that the GPL is a better license than the > BSD license since it ensures that modifications are contributed back > to the ClamAV community. With a BSD license nothing stops someone from > incorporating ClamAV in a commercial product without giving anything > back. But, that's just my personal oppinion. Hope that was properly > flame-proof;-) Sorry I don't angree to that. It's not true that ALL people will steals this source. Yes with GPL it's a MUST to contribute something back. But I prefer BSD (it could also be BSD-Like, so that every commercial Product must told the user that they use code of clamAV). Why? With GPL companies aren't able to cross-license something. That's a huge problem. Take a look to intel and WLAN-support on *NIX. It's damn... the most normals NICs work but mostly the developers haven't any docs. And why? Couse Intel fears that someone could steal something (so I understand the situation). The other point why GPL isn't usefull: GPL infects other Licenses. If I write something and put it under BSD-License (could also be another license, like the license from plan9 or something else) I can't use GPL-Licensed patches or improvements. When I include such patches/improvements the whoole project goes under GPL. I think that's the reason why BSDs dosn't accept clamAV. Yes it's in the ports but it could be std-software wich is always on each BSD. And I think there a lot of developers outside who will help but who wont accept GPL. I personaly dosn't love the GPL and some guys maybe think I hate the GPL. Maybe.. but if I analyse the situation: There's NO need for GPL couse nobody will steals something. It could be more political... If GPL is the digital socialism BSD would be the great communism. :p Ok just 2 cents from a man who read Marx and others. so please ignore this line and the 3 lines before. :-) Rembrandt
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
