Hyper-V ICS 1.0 (w/Synthethic Network Driver) for pfSense 2.1 & 2.1.1
-
1/ I am well aware of the Mozilla BS, that was about the last straw for me. Seems like they are at it again, now they don't like that Dell UK is charging for installation service (maybe someone should mention to them that their trademark rights are exhausted by the first distribution in the EU, after that, they have no way to stop anyone from redistributing it, selling it or whatever else… Meanwhile, the browser development got completely off-track to put it mildly, same happened to their release cycle (wheeeew, we need to catch up with Chrome), and they are losing their userbase pretty fast. Is this the way you'd like to follow?
Firefox had a ton wrong with it. Chrome was, and is, better.
The mere fact that every major browser sans Firefox and IE uses WebKit should explain everything.
Neither is Chrome a fork of Mozilla's code, so your analogy fails to illuminate.
To your point about Mozilla and Dell, first sale does not exhaust or grant reproduction rights.
If what you say we're true, putting Hollywood movies ripped from DVDs would be completely legal. -
Ehmm..
not to bust your chops but Chrome is a fork of chromium , where as chromium now kicked off contributions by chrome (ala google)
<– when your talking about forks and way to do it chrome isn't the best example when it comes to community, great example for one who left community yet became succesful tho :-)
-
Chrome is chromium plus extra proprietary code.
Since Google authored the original code base, supports the project, etc
Google's intention, as expressed in the developer documentation, was that Chromium would be the name of the open source project and that the final product name would be Chrome, however other developers have taken the Chromium code and released versions under the Chromium name. These are listed under "community builds".
And then there is this:
http://trademarkem.com/chrome-turf-war-did-google-abandon-chromium-trademark
Which is exactly the problem.
The suit was later dismissed, and, as part of an undisclosed settlement between Google and ISYS, ISYS abandoned its trademark efforts.
Note that google claim trademark on chromium as a term
http://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/our-trademarks.htmlChrome is not a "fork" of chromium. Chrome is a product based on chromium. Both chromium and Chrome are owned by Google.
-
Again –> not the best example when it comes to community :-)
that was my point where with facts you just strenghten it.
All with all communities expect a certain level of "appriciation" when you contribute thingsi don't get that feeling in this topic as mentioned from the start.
My company now actually does look into alternatives due to this as we don't feel PFSense has the type of management thats "good for opensource".
As far as what we already made (pfsense with xen) --> we are still happy to contribute, but as also indicated we aren't looking on spending alot of time on a finished product, in that case removing pfsense name is way more quick (yet a dick move).
So.. the outcome of contribution vs fork i guess now lays in your court :-)
-
OK, we agree that Google is not the best open source company.
I hope to resolve the -tools repo issue this week. Certainly by the end of the month.
I've been doing open source and free software work since 1987.
Agreed that there is a value trade in all business, including those concerned with offerings based on open source. But if you look, I've made the same representations to both you and the people with the hyper-v work.
Let's do the work to put it in the tree and make a pfSense branded release.
Isn't that what is best?
-
It is best, only reason why i'm still talking :-)
All the rest and cematics around it we don't really care for.
in the very end: we got a finished product
We want it to be for the community
and hope it might be a nice base for future releases regarding Xen.the only warning i give is: make sure it's within limits of time (so we don't jump through hoops too much to achieve, as we just want to give out what we created, not spend weeks on getting it out there :-))
-
@gonzopancho:
Neither is Chrome a fork of Mozilla's code, so your analogy fails to illuminate.
Errrrr, huh, whut? Read again, maybe? What analogy? I've been referring to the "lets see who can release new 'major' versions faster" frenzy, that's all there's to read into about Chrome vs. Mozilla.
@gonzopancho:
To your point about Mozilla and Dell, first sale does not exhaust or grant reproduction rights.
If what you say we're true, putting Hollywood movies ripped from DVDs would be completely legal.Uh… you completely missed the point.
-
As for trademarks, once you introduce your product to any market within EU, you can no longer control the movement (i.e., further distribution/sale) of the trademarked product within EU.
-
As for copyright, same thing applies here as well. "The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof." (Directive 2009/24/EC, Article 4/2). Further, "when the customer of the copyright holder [here, Dell] purchases a copy of a computer program that is on the rightholder’s [here, Mozilla] website, he performs, by downloading the copy onto his computer, a reproduction of the copy which is authorised under Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 … The argument ... that the concept of ‘lawful acquirer’ in Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 relates only to an acquirer who is authorised, under a licence agreement concluded directly with the copyright holder, to use the computer programme cannot be accepted. That argument would have the effect of allowing the copyright holder to prevent the effective use of any used copy in respect of which his distribution right has been exhausted under Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, by relying on his exclusive right of reproduction laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of that directive, and would thus render ineffective the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2). (Cf. UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp, Case C‑128/11.)
So, that's how it works in large part of Europe. As for U.S., that unfortunate part of the world is something I've already written off. :P
-
-
You've still confused first sale exhaustion with reproduction.
If you buy a DVD, you can resell that DVD.
But you can't make copies of that DVD (and then sell or publicly perform them.)It works the same with software. If I buy a copy of windows (even one pre-installed by Dell on a new computer), I can sell the computer with that copy of Windows intact. That's first sale.
But I can't clone the disk and put it in another computer and sell that copy of windows again. That's reproduction. Mozilla is arguing with Dell because Dell is charging to preload Firefox, (each copy is a reproduction), which is contrary to Mozilla's license.
Mozilla wants Firefox (as built by Mozilla) distributed far and wide, at no charge.
-
No, I'm not confused, really.
@gonzopancho:
Mozilla wants Firefox (as built by Mozilla) distributed far and wide, at no charge.
Mozilla does not matter. Likewise, Coca-Cola has no say in whether I give out the bottles of the Coke I bought for free, or resell them. (Finally, Dell is not reselling anything here, they are charging for service. If Mozilla does not like it, well, they don't like it, noone cares really.
Furthermore, the nonsense was about trademark license, not copyright. "We give out our Coke for free, you must not resell it" is something you just cannot enforce. Once you have put some product on the market (for what price is your decision), you only may restrict free movement of goods by virtue of your trademarks as long as the purpose of the trademark protection is being pursued. Which is - foremost - to give you an exclusive right to use the trademark for the first introduction of the product to the market. IOW, to prevent others from selling fake/counterfeit/immitation products, abusing the goodwill/reputation/whatnot of your products. Or, seeing that from the other side, to protect the consumers from those and ensure they get a genuine product. Price policies, on the contrary, is something that is explicitely NOT a valid reason for trademark enforcement, as that defeats the whole purpose of free movement of goods.
-
Coca-Cola has no say in whether I give out the bottles of the Coke I bought for free, or resell them.
What if you open the bottle and add your own ingredients, before reselling it (or handing it out) as Coca-Cola?
IOW, to prevent others from selling fake/counterfeit/immitation products, abusing the goodwill/reputation/whatnot of your products. Or, seeing that from the other side, to protect the consumers from those and ensure they get a genuine product.
I believe that is what ESF is trying to accomplish, protecting the trademarks and consumers from potential abuse in the best way possible for everyone involved.
edit:added a word for clarificaiton
-
I believe that is what ESF is trying to accomplish, protecting the trademarks and consumers from potential abuse in the best way possible for everyone involved.
How did this "best way possible for everyone involved" improve any of the 3 example situations mentioned in my previous post. (Just a couple of most obvious/likely ones.) Kinda curious about the answer, since after that, another bunch of semi-random posts appeared, pretty much totally taken out of the context and not following the conversation logic at all.
What you seem to be missing is that these people in general don't give a damn about your trademarks. You are taking away access to required tools from them and are making their life a PITA and are wasting their time, using trademarks as a magic formula due to a largely overblown incident… Frankly, I couldn't care less how's this thing called and what logo it uses, does NOT matter in the least for me. Features, usability, stability, as few bugs as possible, fixing issues fast - that is what users are interested in. Not your trademarks.
-
At this point, nothing we say will correct the misinterpretations of "doktornotor".
So, we're done here.
If the thread turns abusive, it will be closed.
-
@gonzopancho:
At this point, nothing we say will correct the misinterpretations of "doktornotor".
So, we're done here.
If the thread turns abusive, it will be closed.
Agreed, please can we try and keep this on topic!
We now have the opportunity to have a release for the Hyper-V and Xen hypervisors. (yes I realise that the Xen hypervisor is quite off-topic).
I'm looking forward to progress!
Peter
-
Me too, Peter.
Let's move pfSense forward. Getting it available on new platforms is one way of making forward progress.
I would really like to see pfSense on Hyper-V and Xen. I'm just looking for some assistance in making it happen.
-
Well, the Xen part is already done and fully tested so it already happened.
thing left to do would be finding a way to get it published ;-)Our R&D is now working on Hyper-v one and they assume it won't take a long time to finish that one aswell (with CARP working and up to 10Gbit speeds).
Tho due to early stage they are reluctant to give any real time frame.
For any more info and/or finding a way to get it published i assume direct mail will work faster then a off topic forum chat.
-
For any more info and/or finding a way to get it published i assume direct mail will work faster then a off topic forum chat.
jim-at-netgate-dot-com
or
jim-at-pfsense-dot-org -
I've been hammering on it, trying to get it to build a working hyper-v ISO using the tools. They're small changes, it just takes a long time to test them (and it'd help to have help from someone familiar with the build process, specifically on kernel building)
Results have been mixed. Part of the problem has been that the compile options used to build the kernel that is used in the ISO don't seem to work with the hyper-v modules (they compile, just don't work). We'll likely have to use the same AMD64 SMP kernel that gets installed on HD on the ISO (don't know how to specify this in the tools).
When forcing the SMP kernel and modules onto the ISO, I can get the utilities and network driver to load (so the live CD can run a firewall with the synthetic network driver as you'd expect), but I've been unable to get it to work when loading the hyper-v storage modules because it can't find the optical drive when it boots (this is what the hv_ata_pci_disengage.ko module is supposed to prevent, but it doesn't seem to be working), and since it doesn't load the storage driver, you'd have to create the geom labels as described in the first post (if you want improved disk performance).
-
Hmm,
Well it been a while back since i tried your iso (when it was still publicly available).
I do remember there where issues with CARP + FreeBSD at the time (which would be one of the things we do need working).Seems our R&D is still on initial steps to first get a FreeBSD 8.3 100% working with hyper-V.
Once thats completed they (hopefully) know what to do with PFSense to make it work :-) (or so i was told)
-
I think I figured it out. I had to go through some false starts; but, with minor changes to pfsense tools, I finally was able to build an ISO that runs the live CD and installs using the synthetic device drivers. I'll post more details once I run some more tests.
With any luck, this will help the community short term, maybe allow to have an official Hyper-V edition within the pfSense codebase, and give key4ce and team a head start on making a CARP enabled version.
-
I think I figured it out. I had to go through some false starts; but, with minor changes to pfsense tools, I finally was able to build an ISO that runs the live CD and installs using the synthetic device drivers. I'll post more details once I run some more tests.
With any luck, this will help the community short term, maybe allow to have an official Hyper-V edition within the pfSense codebase, and give key4ce and team a head start on making a CARP enabled version.
That is great news!
If you need any help testing just let me know.
Peter
