Copyright Violation

[NollipfSense]

@johnpoz said in Copyright Violation:

Are you trying to compare some company installing the + version on some hardware they sell to someone quoting some comment posted on on a forum on another forum?

The selling was just announced, isn't it? Before that point, it was free if one registered (ask permission).

[johnpoz]

@NollipfSense said in Copyright Violation:

it was free if one registered (ask permission).

For lab or home use - and where did it say some company could install it and sell it on their hardware.. Without a partnership with netgate? So company X buys this box from company Y, and then company X uses in commercial use.. etc..

There has been a problem for a really long time.. Pfsense while FREE.. say version 2.7 CE.. for anyone to download and use - there is a huge difference in you doing that an installing it on whatever you want. And some company selling some box on amazon with pfsense 2.7 CE already installed, etc..

But I don't see how you could compare something like that to someone quoting a post on a public forum, on someone saying hey look what I saw on another forum?? And posting what they saw..

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.. But there is a huge difference in these things ;)

While I agree its nice if someone sees information xyz on forum ABC, and they want to spread the good info on forum DEF that they link back to where they saw it. Maybe I could take to Judge Judy and say say look billy here quoted what I said, and didn't link back to where I said it.. hahah Sure she would find in my favor!!

[NollipfSense]

@johnpoz said in Copyright Violation:

For lab or home use - and where did it say some company could install it

The point I made is that, that got abused...nothing more. So, don't let the copyright notice gets abused.

[johnpoz]

@NollipfSense Well yeah its been being abused since forever.. You always find shit on amazon even for example where pfsense is pre-installed. Which not being a lawyer, nor playing one on TV or even Radio.. Know is wrong..

Took 2 seconds to find this

This is for sure not a netgate box, and I would bet my left nut they sure and the F do not have some reseller or partner agreement with netgate.. Doesn't matter if they installed CE vs + on the thing.. They should not be selling it with pfsense pre-installed.. If they want to say hey you can install all of these fancy firewall distro's on it if you want.. That would be fine, but it shouldn't be pre-installed.

But this is not anywhere close to someone quoting something said a forum on another forum

To be honest it shouldn't take a lawyer, or even someone that plays one on TV to understand how this is wrong. For starters if doesn't work correctly or whatever - it could make pfsense look bad.. This company could do something wrong when they install it, or maybe their box is just crap.. But now someone thinks that pfsense was at fault and crap, etc..

Even if pfsense is FREE, companies should not be doing such a thing without an agreement with the software company - even if that software company gives their product away for free.. Has nothing to do with why this is wrong..

[NollipfSense]

Actually, I never liked seeing those boxes in forum post...it's deceptively similar to Netgate's offer and should never be encourage or allowed on the forum...just me!

[RobbieTT]

@johnpoz said in Copyright Violation:

This is for sure not a netgate box...

Even if pfsense is FREE, companies should not be doing such a thing without an agreement with the software company - even if that software company gives their product away for free.. Has nothing to do with why this is wrong..

I'm not sure it is wrong to reproduce and distribute copies of pfSense under the Apache License - it's community software. Nothing is wrong in saying your product works with pfSense either, as long as you don't claim a direct link or association with the owner or licensee.

pfSense, as a trademark, is not interchangeable with Netgate and Netgate does not own the 'pfSense' trademark. As a licensed user of the 'pfSense' trademark it is quite right that Netgate (aka Rubicon) defend their rights to preserve it. Indeed, they probably have an explicit duty to do so.

As an aside, I've not stumbled on a trademark for pfSense+ or pfSense Plus. Seems slightly odd if that is the case....

But this is not anywhere close to someone quoting something said a forum on another forum

Yep!

️

[Popolou]

@johnpoz Curious, do we know whether Netgate makes attempts to enforce their T's & C's if indeed use of CE via such actors is enforceable? Notice can take any form frankly.

[RobbieTT]

@Popolou said in Copyright Violation:

...do we know whether Netgate makes attempts to enforce their T's & C's if indeed use of CE via such actors is enforceable?

The T&C's are published and included in the original software distribution, as per anything covered under the Apache License v2.0 and these include redistribution.

For example*:

Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:

a. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
b. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
c. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
d. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file...[snip].

️

*As ever, the whole document applies, do not rely on the parsed example alone.

[Phizix]

@NollipfSense,

Fair use does NOT mean wholesale copying large portions of text from copyrighted material. However excerpts from a copyrighted book or other copyrighted material for a news article or other paper for the purpose of research are what is in view.
Otherwise we end up with the whole, you can't take night pictures of the Eiffel Tower.

Clearly installing pfSense+ is not in this category. It falls under a different category.

Again, "fair use" does not mean copying all they want. But when making a point in a forum, copyrighted or not, it IS fair use to excerpt a set of lines that are pertinent to the point at hand.

Otherwise no news article could be able to quote or even show excepts from other news feeds. This is well established.
While it might be possible to start a civil action, it would likely not succeed against any large news organization. If the company is small they might simply remove it to avoid any hassle, rather than litigate it.

If stephenw10 wants to pursue it then he can. But only Netgate or stephen would have standing to pursue it.

Over and out.

Phizix

P.S. This horse is dead Jim.

[NollipfSense]

@Phizix said in Copyright Violation:

Clearly installing pfSense+ is not in this category. It falls under a different category.

That was Apples to Oranges...clearly changed the original intent of the thread...

This is about a website with a clear copyright notice given to the public... Also, this isn't about going after anyone; its about members respecting copyright notices of websites so that abuses are mitigated. Calling dead horse seems a bully tactics to shut up, isn't it?

[NollipfSense]

@NollipfSense said in Copyright Violation:

So, I was doing some research trying to find the relationship between Intel i350 and the Intel QAT 8950 based on here: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/183735/drivers-loading-during-booting-up/23...ran across something from Lawrence System forum that Netgate should address as a kind reminder. Patrons can post links from or to Netgate forum/post; however, patrons may not cut/copy and paste any content from Netgate forum to any other forum...that's copyright violation and not cool.

Above is quoting while below is copying from a website that has a copyright notice to the public without first asking their permission...the difference from the original is that the copied material is not taken to another website owned by others...it stayed at Netgate's domain.

[Phizix]

@NollipfSense said in Copyright Violation:

That was Apples to Oranges...clearly changed the original intent of the thread...

This is about a website with a clear copyright notice given to the public... Also, this isn't about going after anyone; its about members respecting copyright notices of websites so that abuses are mitigated. Calling dead horse seems a bully tactics to shut up, isn't it?

That is basically what I was trying to say. Somewhere along the way that got into the thread, so I agree that it way outside the original.

Jeez Nolli, you need to get a sense of humor.

Peace!

[NollipfSense]

@Phizix said in Copyright Violation:

Peace!

Always accepted...thanks!