marc at msys
Jul 9, 2011, 4:27 AM
Post #7 of 10
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.
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 [at] freebsd> wrote:
>> On 9 July 2011 08:49, Andrey V. Martyanov <realduke [at] gmail> 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
>>> 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
>> Remember free/open-source doesn't mean no cost...
>> Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net
> Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net