Pfsense-tools missing from repository
-
What about contaction Manuel Kasper and M0n0wall since Pfsense is based on that?
Then develop what we need for the m0n0 and then forget about the greedy bunch that resides on what others produce ?
-
Hmm, interesting (and worrying) stuff.
@doktornotor, assuming you might come back to read this thread, you have your Jims mixed up. Jim Thompson is who you're referring to whereas JimP (Jim Pingle) is a completely different guy. ;)
Thanks Jim (T) for taking the time to clarify the situation. Obviously there are still many questions but until everything is out in the open it seems pointless speculating.The most important question for me, if you're reading this, is: if there are going to be community and commercial releases what's the difference going to be? Will you be removing features from one or adding features to the other?
I never actually ran the offending 2.2 images that were posted (only because they weren't Nano) so I don't know, was the pfSense logo actually changed in some way? Even if it were I don't believe for a second that the guy who posted them meant to hurt pfSense in any way. Yes, technically, he may have infringed the trademark but it wasn't a malicious attempt to cash in.
There seems to be some confusion over the use of the word 'clone'. I would think (though I have no evidence) that by far the majority of those who cloned the pfSense git repos did so to be able to test a few fixes or add a few features in order to be able to contribute back. Very few of them will have re-branded the distro or in some way rebuilt pfSense for their own ends.
I don't think anyone here would begrudge the owners of pfSense attempting to restrict others using their trademark for profit.
Steve
-
you have your Jims mixed up. Jim Thompson is who you're referring to whereas JimP (Jim Pingle) is a completely different guy. ;)
Indeed. My bad, and apologies.
so I don't know, was the pfSense logo actually changed in some way? Even if it were I don't believe for a second that the guy who posted them meant to hurt pfSense in any way. Yes, technically, he may have infringed the trademark but it wasn't a malicious attempt to cash in.
Nah. AFAICT he used a modified pfSense logo in the thread only, with 2.2 or something similar added. Completely inadequate knee-jerk reaction on the thread, then the thread got deleted in addition, and then all went downhill pretty fast. :(
I would think (though I have no evidence) that by far the majority of those who cloned the pfSense git repos did so to be able to test a few fixes or add a few features in order to be able to contribute back. Very few of them will have re-branded the distro or in some way rebuilt pfSense for their own ends.
Indeed. And, for the latter cases, there seriously is nothing wrong with that when you rebrand it, nothing in the license prevents you from doing so. It's even been offered as a paid service before (see the links to devwiki posted above.)
I don't think anyone here would begrudge the owners of pfSense attempting to restrict others using their trademark for profit.
Of course not. These are cases which should be solved by the "law firm" and "polite letters". However, it has nothing to do with the community in general, and putting red tape over the whole project and wasting community time with nonsense such as contracts to access builds tools repo, or signing some contributor license agreements is way over board for my taste, and just not something I expect from an open-source project. Seriously annoyed and disappointed, There's enough of this crap with commercial closed source SW.
-
Maybe the answer to all this is Sense Foundation ?.
Companies and persons will be free to participate, and the code always free.
The same step of FreeBSD Foundation and trademark in the past. -
This has been addressed more on the dev list by me and others in multiple February and March threads.
http://lists.pfsense.org/pipermail/dev/2014-March/thread.html
http://lists.pfsense.org/pipermail/dev/2014-February/thread.htmlOne complaint here I didn't see addressed there is the contributor agreement. Every open source project that's in solid legal standing has one, we should have a decade ago. Hasn't proven to be a problem thus far, but we don't want to be in a situation where we have to pull or rewrite code because someone makes claims against their past contributions. This is of benefit to the project as a whole, and it's common among significant open source projects.
-
@cmb:
This has been addressed more on the dev list by me and others in multiple February and March threads.
http://lists.pfsense.org/pipermail/dev/2014-March/thread.html
http://lists.pfsense.org/pipermail/dev/2014-February/thread.htmlOne complaint here I didn't see addressed there is the contributor agreement. Every open source project that's in solid legal standing has one, we should have a decade ago. Hasn't proven to be a problem thus far, but we don't want to be in a situation where we have to pull or rewrite code because someone makes claims against their past contributions. This is of benefit to the project as a whole, and it's common among significant open source projects.
Are you going to be pulling the builder related code from that git repository and put the rest back up on git? People need pfPorts for debugging things also what about package builders and understanding that process?
-
Hi,
Somebody has the /home/pfsense 2.1.1 backup ?. gzip…
I porting pfsense to the new pcengines apu motherboard and need customize the kernel.Thanks.
Pascal reported that it "just works". We have it running internally as well.
We are doing some work to enable the LEDs and the sw reset button. -
you have your Jims mixed up. Jim Thompson is who you're referring to whereas JimP (Jim Pingle) is a completely different guy. ;)
Indeed. My bad, and apologies.
To be clear, I am Jim Thompson, and JimP (Pingle) works for ESF as well.
so I don't know, was the pfSense logo actually changed in some way? Even if it were I don't believe for a second that the guy who posted them meant to hurt pfSense in any way. Yes, technically, he may have infringed the trademark but it wasn't a malicious attempt to cash in.
Nah. AFAICT he used a modified pfSense logo in the thread only, with 2.2 or something similar added. Completely inadequate knee-jerk reaction on the thread, then the thread got deleted in addition, and then all went downhill pretty fast. :(
He built something called "pfSense 2.2", used an adulterated logo, and then posted about it in the forum.
I responded asking him to take it down. Someone else (not me, and not cmb) deleted the thread.I would think (though I have no evidence) that by far the majority of those who cloned the pfSense git repos did so to be able to test a few fixes or add a few features in order to be able to contribute back. Very few of them will have re-branded the distro or in some way rebuilt pfSense for their own ends.
Indeed. And, for the latter cases, there seriously is nothing wrong with that when you rebrand it, nothing in the license prevents you from doing so. It's even been offered as a paid service before (see the links to devwiki posted above.)
See? You do understand the issue. Thank you.
I don't think anyone here would begrudge the owners of pfSense attempting to restrict others using their trademark for profit.
Of course not. These are cases which should be solved by the "law firm" and "polite letters". However, it has nothing to do with the community in general, and putting red tape over the whole project and wasting community time with nonsense such as contracts to access builds tools repo, or signing some contributor license agreements is way over board for my taste, and just not something I expect from an open-source project. Seriously annoyed and disappointed, There's enough of this crap with commercial closed source SW.
If you really are trained as a lawyer, you'll more than understand why we need a CLA.
I've already said that I'm trying to restore access to the -tools repo in a way that meets our needs without a contract. That would just be frictional, and a load of work for us. -
Thanks for clearing some things up here Jim.
You've allayed some of my fears, hopefully those of others.
Steve
-
-
Thanks for clearing some things up here Jim.
You've allayed some of my fears, hopefully those of others.
Steve
I'm responding to you, since I've sworn off responding to abusive a-holes like doktornotor.
While it took too long (my bad), the -tools access has been restored. Those who had sent in a ssh-key have been invited to the early rounds, so we could test the system.
-
@gonzopancho:
the -tools access has been restored.
ORLY?
-
Those who repeatedly post based on unwarranted assumptions will be ignored.
-
Where's the -tools repo? Will you either make it available or stop this deceptive advertising? How old are you? 5 yrs? Extremely mature behaviour.
-
The '-tools' repo is available.
-
Linky??
-
@gonzopancho:
The '-tools' repo is available.
GOTO - now perhaps you should take a break and let someone else handle this fiasco before you totally kill the project.
-
-
@gonzopancho:
explained here
Not really.
-
!(Not really.)
Keep reading, dude.
