Hyper-V ICS 1.0 (w/Synthethic Network Driver) for pfSense 2.1 & 2.1.1

tisler

Changed to pfSense 2.2.
Details here: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=75549.0

key4ce

Not to drag up on a old topic but:
we got PFsense 100% working on Xen and Hyper-v
with all hyper-v drivers, fully working Carp, multi-subnetting, etc.

We notified Jim this week and awaiting his reply on arrangements to publish this as a PFSense build.

Regards,
Marco

unless we build it, it's not going to be called "pfSense".

You've not offered the patches.

In any case, the strategy here is 2.2 with native support for Hyper-V

key4ce

Well,

We send you an email about making arrangements to publish it (i do believe Angelo is awaiting reply).
As far as native Hyper-V support: it's not just about the drivers of hyper-v that is easy.
Carp however needs ALOT of changes to make it 100% functional with virtualized environments.

We have made it all work 100% (and our own systems been running live on it without a hitch for a while now).

As far as the PFSense name and publishing: you don't need to repeat that, but as i said before: easy to fork and rename (also supported by your agreement).

Though preferred method (for everyone) would be publishing arrangements with PFSense which is why Angelo is waiting for a reply by mail.

Regards,
Marco

@key4ce:

As far as the PFSense name and publishing: you don't need to repeat that, but as i said before: easy to fork and rename (also supported by your agreement).

Why do people always assume that I (of all people) don't understand this?

@key4ce:

Though preferred method (for everyone) would be publishing arrangements with PFSense which is why Angelo is waiting for a reply by mail.

I agree, but "publishing arrangements" sounds like you want to get paid. Why not just issue pull requests?

key4ce

Paid?
nop, some recognition for over 8 months of development bug testing and RC testing –> Ofcourse.

Though you can say recognition is a form of payment (it is for us anyways).
Angelo did make several bug fixes (without recognition) to PFsense so far.

I do assume it's easy to come to terms together and get a fully functional (even with some unique functions ur current pfsense doesn't got) Virtualized PFSense on Xen/Hyper-v/ Vmware is worth some recognition, if you don't then you don't thats up to you :-)

@key4ce:

Paid?
nop, some recognition for over 8 months of development bug testing and RC testing –> Ofcourse.

please describe this "recognition" you seek.

@key4ce:

Though you can say recognition is a form of payment (it is for us anyways).
Angelo did make several bug fixes (without recognition) to PFsense so far.

many people do as well.

@key4ce:

I do assume it's easy to come to terms together and get a fully functional (even with some unique functions ur current pfsense doesn't got) Virtualized PFSense on Xen/Hyper-v/ Vmware is worth some recognition, if you don't then you don't thats up to you :-)

please describe these unique functions.

My largest concern is adopting all of this into the tree given the full focus on 2.2 inside the organization. While we're maintaining the 2.1 series, we tend to only perform releases on this path for security issues.

key4ce

This should already have been described by Angelo by email i believe.

And i know many people contribute (i just meant so did we so far).

Unique features would be for example multi subnet gateways in carp that can still talk to each other (originally their isolated @ pfsense).
We had a need for that due to /24 range being too small for our servers yet /16 isn't recommended to use in production.
That was pretty much how we solved it.

I'm not sure on what source Angelo based it but it's currently running on Freebsd v10 package platform states 2.2 Beta but i'm not sure if thats accurate.

I do assume it can be merged with your current developments.
Though as i said before i would recommend making a "special edition" for virtualization to keep everything optimized.

I've responded to Angelo's email of 28 Aug, (the same day we were releasing 2.1.5, so we were a bit "busy" as I'm sure you understand.

Monday was a holiday in the US.

Let's continue the conversation via email.

Best,

Jim

tester_02

I have to agree with the pfsense team here.
If you don't want to send the code to the pfsense team so they can add it to 2.2+, then why should you have a custom release and call it pfsense. If the agreement says you can fork it over as something else, then do that.
I can now see why the dev team took control of the pfsense releases. If others want to release their own versions which are not supported, then don't call it pfsense. I expect some level of testing from the pfsense name, and this way we are not even sure what's in the code if you are not willing to release it.
The option could have been to request a bounty and if enough money was generated, you could release the code to the dev team. (if that was the goal).
I wasat first was all about the hyper-v support and the separate builds. But I can see where it could be headed if it was not controlled.

Now if gonzopancho would keep this calm composure in all the other threads as well, there might end up being some peace. :)

I'm tryin', tester_02, I'm tryin', real hard. ("Pulp Fiction" reference: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vMN5uQhF-Ro)

Marco and I danced for a bit. Then he explained that he wasn't bound by the CLA or license, because he hadn't signed them, Angelo did.

This is part of the reason the license is non-transferable.

In addition, Marco wanted a restriction that we not be able to "sell" pfsense.

Now, we don't "sell" pfsense, we sell hardware with pfsense pre-loaded, support services, and professional services. (And Gold, which provides access to the book, hangouts, ACB, etc.)

So "no problem", right?

Nope.

Any such restriction wouldn't be free software or open source.

Check it:

Taking the GPL as the most restrictive open source / free software license:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?(#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)
"Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)"

Now let's look at the Open Source Definition: http://opensource.org/os

You won't have to read beyond the first paragraph:

"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

Read it. What Marco proposed is not open source, nor is it free software. As such, we will never accept such conditions. If I turned down VMware's deal (and I did, even though they wanted to pay us, (key4ce offered nothing other than code with restrictions)), why wouldn't I turn down Key4ce?

Because there is NO open source or free software license that asserts control over the sale of the resultant work.

Marco attempted to counter with statements such as:

Yes everything we make and release always been opensource and for free. but none of them ever given the right to anyone to sell, and we keep it that way :-)

But given the above, no such restriction is possible. (And imagine the result if we said the same about pfsense.). If it can't be sold, it's not open source. And not open source means it's not going in pfsense.

Marco countered with this as a license that doesn't allow selling:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Which is a human-readable summary of: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

But even the simple form is clear about "no commercial restrictions".

Moreover:

– we can't control what others do.

-- I'm not managing a plethora of licenses that have unique restrictions in the tree.

My apologies to the community, for their inconvenience, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the code base for Key4ce's business model.

key4ce

Funny how you suddenly took this public.

You forgot to mention you suspended our contributors license but never told us the reason.
The license we want is 100% opensource without the rights to sell.

license example i gave you was: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

As you can see it's 100% freeware AND demands anyone using our code to keep it freeware (same license).

Aparently too hard for jim to swallow.

However not to waste time we are confident to publish virtualpf.com within 7 to 14 days
fully compatible with Vmware, Hyper-V and Xen. (with automatic driver install).

also works on KVM etc (but they do not require special drivers).

the license we will publish it under will be opensource, free for everyone BUT requires everyone to publish it under the same license.
Preventing people from selling it.

Jim, Don't try and make this whole thing personal, we aren't planning on publicly discrasing what you said and did to us neither.
however if you want a public "battle" you have still failed the reason on revoking our contributors agreement while all we did was talk (and so far no actions or publications have been made).

You can soon put your eyes on our new site, and the license we publish everything under, and try and find any flaw as you can (we expect that from you).
Safe to say we never once violated your terms, licenses and agreements and tried to publish it all under PFSense under your rules.

We just don't allow people to Sell things thats meant for free :-)

PS: Your hardware argument fails from the start –> their not virtualized, and you sell the hardware not the software on it but you know this already --> i even said this in your first reply on not allowing to sell (then you never brought it up again).

Regards,
Marco

@key4ce:

Funny how you suddenly took this public.

it was public before. I was informing the other interested parties that an agreement could not be reached, and why.

@key4ce:

You forgot to mention you suspended our contributors license but never told us the reason.
The license we want is 100% opensource without the rights to sell.

I didn't suspend your CLA, I provided notice that, if you had a license (and it's not clear that you ever did), your license to the pfSense codebase (upon which access to the pfsense-tools repository is conditional) is revoked.

Quoting https://www.pfsense.org/ESF_License_Agreement_v1.0.pdf:

"You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of a recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work."

You've breeched the agreement in at least these terms. I've even offered that there is a way for you to cure the breech, and you can get "back in the club", as it were.

@key4ce:

license example i gave you was: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

and it says, right at the top of the page: "This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license."
where the words "this license" are a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode, which is what I pointed to.

@key4ce:

As you can see it's 100% freeware AND demands anyone using our code to keep it freeware (same license).

Aparently too hard for jim to swallow.

Apparently, you've not read the very page to which you point. Allow me to quote in-part:

–-
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
–
(emphasis mine)

@key4ce:

However not to waste time we are confident to publish virtualpf.com within 7 to 14 days
fully compatible with Vmware, Hyper-V and Xen. (with automatic driver install).

also works on KVM etc (but they do not require special drivers).

the license we will publish it under will be opensource, free for everyone BUT requires everyone to publish it under the same license. Preventing people from selling it.

I've shown why this is compliant with neither the Open Source Definition, nor the definition of Free Software. I've pointed out above that you are not free to re-license pfSense to your own ends.

And again, forking is explicitly allowed. The fact that you've created a fork isn't a problem. The fact that you're prepared to distribute your fork outside the bounds of the pfSense license is a problem. A very big problem.

Despite all of my detractors, the license for pfSense is designed to keep pfSense Free and Open Source. Forever. It's not perfect, and goodness knows that I'm not in-favor of what I had to do last March/April. I've been thinking a lot over the past 6 months on ways to restore the situation without leaving pfSense open to hostile actions such as what you've proposed. This is not the place to have the discussions around that topic, but it is, again, something that I've thought a lot about.

@key4ce:

Jim, Don't try and make this whole thing personal, we aren't planning on publicly discrasing what you said and did to us neither.
however if you want a public "battle" you have still failed the reason on revoking our contributors agreement while all we did was talk (and so far no actions or publications have been made).

You can soon put your eyes on our new site, and the license we publish everything under, and try and find any flaw as you can (we expect that from you). Safe to say we never once violated your terms, licenses and agreements and tried to publish it all under PFSense under your rules.

We just don't allow people to Sell things thats meant for free :-)

PS: Your hardware argument fails from the start –> their not virtualized, and you sell the hardware not the software on it but you know this already --> i even said this in your first reply on not allowing to sell (then you never brought it up again).

Regards,
Marco

I find it both interesting and sad that:

You're the one who wants to put pfSense under a license that is neither an open source, nor free software license, and your license is holy and good, but the license to the code upon which you based the work is worthless, and you're more than ready to cast it aside.

That your work is above the work of hundreds of contributors to the pfSense project over the past decade.

And that this is exactly the type of situation that caused me to put the pfSense-tools repo behind a license agreement.

Marco, you are the first, (and only) party to have been noticed that your license is revoked.

Again, this begs the question that you ever had a license to the work, since you claim that you never signed the agreement, that Angelo did, and that you're the only one who can sign for your company. Nice footwork, but it's not going to fly. Since the license is non-sublicenable and non-transferable, you couldn't have a license to the work to begin with. If you do, somehow, you've breeched the agreement, and your license has been revoked. In either case, you don't have a license to the work.

You've been noticed that you are in breech and your license to pfSense is revoked.

You've been offered a way to cure the breech that is no different than what you should have done to begin with.

Anyone can sell pfSense. We've said this almost from the very start a decade ago. What's not going to happen is that you make a private fork of pfSense with new restrictions. Again, I said, "No" to VMware on this very subject, and they offered money. I said "No", and I'm telling you the same thing.

key4ce

Jim,

I'm not gonna start a yes or no battle with you.
You actually already contradict your self with that you didn't suspend our license and then you suddenly did in one single post.

That you keep claiming we breached anything by talking is funny, as so far there's nothing provided and distributed.
Only after Saturday we made the choice that it's pointless to keep on talking with you as your attitude is kind of off when it comes to opensource.

That you keep claiming the example i have given isn't opensource is funny, as it's known as a 100% freeworks license.
Allows everything including commercial use, only thing it adds is that it's mandatory to re-distribute everything based up on it for free.

It's not a "holy license" it's just an example that there's plenty of ways to force it to stay opensource (something many developers seek, and users want aswell).

That you got alot of contributors that agree with your license to sell thats fine, though i wonder how many of them spend over 8 months of work on pfsense for a massive contribution and continued contributions in the future

On top of that we already know some contributors that aren't happy with ESF's way of handling and licensing neither, and have reached out to us because of that.

That you have been thinking alot in the past 6 months: you should. You depend on contributors and people that are willing to help, however people that are willing to help kind of disappear quickly if you make them jump through loops, openly attack them, etc.

We are well known with opensource, especially with hosting related opensource projects. not giving the right to sell is a common thing.
That you don't like it or see things differently is entirely up to you, its why we made a decision to fork it, and have no issues with you.

That you then try to pull our efforts down to something thats not opensource etc etc –> thats just a joke, but hey.. continue to try, maybe you get some people that believe you, or maybe you just send more people straight towards us with your behavior.

@key4ce:

Jim,

I'm not gonna start a yes or no battle with you.
You actually already contradict your self with that you didn't suspend our license and then you suddenly did in one single post.

You apparently have some trouble with English. You said "suspend", I responded with the correct term: "revoked".

@key4ce:

That you keep claiming we breached anything by talking is funny, as so far there's nothing provided and distributed.
Only after Saturday we made the choice that it's pointless to keep on talking with you as your attitude is kind of off when it comes to open source.

… because of my insistence that pfSense remains Open Source? You're a curiosity.

@key4ce:

That you keep claiming the example i have given isn't opensource is funny, as it's known as a 100% freeware license.

I see, having lost at your attempts to label what you're doing Open Source or Free Software, you've now moved on to "freeware".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware

"According to the Free Software Foundation, "freeware" is a loosely defined category and it has no clear accepted definition, although FSF says it must be distinguished from free software (libre). Well known examples of closed-source freeware include Adobe Reader and Skype."

Nice company you're keeping there, Marco.

@key4ce:

Allows everything including commercial use, only thing it adds is that it's mandatory to re-distribute everything under the same license.

Which is exactly what the pfSense license allows, too. Only you want to re-license pfSense.

@key4ce:

That you got alot of contributors that agree with your license to sell thats fine, though i wonder how many of them spend over 8 months of work on pfsense for a massive contribution and continued contributions in the future

What "license to sell"? Anyone can sell pfSense. They don't need a license to do it.

@key4ce:

That you don't like it or see things differently is entirely up to you, its why we made a decision to fork it, and have no issues with you.

Other than you completely ignore our license.

Here's what might happen from here, Marco.

You open source your work, (which I remind, nobody has ever seen). It's either good, or not so good. Time will tell.

If it's good, people might use it. If you've really open sourced the work, someone will take a look at what you've done, and recreate it for other platforms. Or they'll look at what you've done and find a better way.

I'd wish you luck, as I've wished others "good luck", but you seem deceptive, and I don't want to endorse that.

So, go ahead with your fork, Marco. No objection I'd have to your deception would matter. I'm looking forward to reading the source code, studying it, and, if it's useful, seeing it re-implemented it in pfSense under an actual Open Source license.

key4ce

Sorry i should correct my mistake "freeware" with "Freeculture" (share-alike) license.
http://creativecommons.org/freeworks
As you can see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
is: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Unless you consider all that not opensource (even tho it actually forces everyone using the code to keep it opensource) i am really not sure what your definition of opensource will be.

===================================================================================================================
Why is the Share-Alike license a free culture license?
ShareAlike doesn’t place any restrictions on the type of use–its only difference from the BY license is that it requires works that build upon it to be released freely. (Usually, under the same license, but there may be other compatible licenses in the future.)

This is different from the NC and ND licenses, which restrict some types of uses entirely, regardless of whether those users would contribute their work back to the commons.

that i have breached your agreement is kinda odd considering we haven't actually done anything but you keep seeming to miss that.

Apparently giving a example of a license we like to see (preventing closed source) didn't sit well with you.

That my English isn't perfect, granted it's my 3rd language so mistakes will be made. we can talk in my native language if you prefer?.

That i am deceptive.. what gave you the idea on that? my entire life i been called too direct.
You can even see that in earlier conversations where i gave the site we are planning to open AND that we expect you to check it out on any flaws.

I have also said countless of times we will make sure the licensing aspect will be correct following legal laws, and gave you an example of the license we are looking into.

Instead of talking like a decent human being you just keep attacking me, and now also my company.
You really wonder why your own contributors are looking for a path far away from you?

As far as how i run my company: my company has been ran for 9 years with success, we deliver 24/7 Support with a no-cure no pay guarantee, 300+ satisfied and returning customers all in the IT and Hosting business.

Reasons why our customers like us: Because we are honest and fair. (reflected in all their feed backs).

I can't imagine a situation where we have deceived you, we have talked with you for weeks, on a simple subject.
That you where planning to receive/ view and use our code was obvious from the start it's also the reason why you haven't seen it without a agreement in place.

in native language "wat je zegt ben je zelf", translation: what you say is what you are your self.
bit like: when you point a finger to someone there's 3 pointing back at you.

It's actually my dev that was already convinced there was no way to reason with you and we should fork it after the second email.
I however thought there was a way to reason with you, turns out my dev was right and we just wasted weeks for nothing while people still don't have a good firewall they can virtualize..

As far as your references to the PFSense license: you might actually want to check your site, as a detailed license isn't to be found.
BSD license and GPL license do allow people to dual-license as they please. (meaning our codes can be under our license and yours can stay under yours)
It also does not fall under "Re-license PFSense" it falls under our codes are under a different license.
Much like the projects PFSense is using fall under different licenses then the PFSense license.

Most funny part: you do actually allow that part following your site, if people use codes made by others they have to provide you with the type of license their distributed under.

Common practice to simply include their license under their code and your license under your code if there's a difference.
Only thing you have to make sure is that their license is inline with the type of license you distribute under.

With the share-alike license it's compatible however restricts other forks from making it closed source IF they keep our code.

A little advice for you:
Stop pushing everyone away with your attitude, people are generally here to improve the project without bad intentions.
It appears you think everyone has bad intentions and you react as such.
it might be true in 1 out of 100 cases, but the other 99 where here with good intentions and you chased them away by treating them as a criminal.

and in the end.. people will treat you how you treat them.

@key4ce:

Sorry i should correct my mistake "freeware" with "Freeculture" (share-alike) license.
http://creativecommons.org/freeworks
As you can see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
is: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Unless you consider all that not opensource (even tho it actually forces everyone using the code to keep it opensource) i am really not sure what your definition of opensource will be.

Rather than get into what I consider Open Source to be, or what you consider it to be, I quoted the Open Source Definition.
http://opensource.org/osd

@key4ce:

that i have breached your agreement is kinda odd considering we haven't actually done anything but you keep seeming to miss that.

This reads a lot like, "I've not molested your child yet."

In any case, you readily state that Key4ce hasn't signed the CLA or License, state that only you can bind the company, that Angelo has signed them, (or has otherwise acquired access to the pfsense-tools repo), and that you are prepared to distribute. You've provided notice that the CLA and License agreement are not in-force, so I've provided notice that you don't have a license.

@key4ce:

Apparently giving a example of a license we like to see (preventing closed source) didn't sit well with you.

Not at all. The pfSense license agreement also prevents closed source. What didn't sit well with me is that you are:
a) relicensing pfSense (which is not allowed, and will cause a revocation of the license.
b) calling what you're doing "open source", when it fits neither the definition of Open Source or Free Software.

@key4ce:

That my English isn't perfect, granted it's my 3rd language so mistakes will be made. we can talk in my native language if you prefer?.

As you prefer.

@key4ce:

That i am deceptive.. what gave you the idea on that? my entire life i been called too direct.

Funny thing. The same is true of me. Yet you castigate me for being direct. Seems to be another funny thing.

@key4ce:

I have also said countless of times we will make sure the licensing aspect will be correct following legal laws, and gave you an example of the license we are looking into.

What is a "legal law"? How does one "follow a legal law"? Also, there is a difference between what one says one will do, and what one does.

@key4ce:

Instead of talking like a decent human being you just keep attacking me, and now also my company.
You really wonder why your own contributors are looking for a path far away from you?

Here you make an assertion without providing evidence.

@key4ce:

I can't imagine a situation where we have deceived you, we have talked with you for weeks, on a simple subject.
That you where planning to receive/ view and use our code was obvious from the start it's also the reason why you haven't seen it without a agreement in place.

I notice your attempt to turn this around. As they say in the US, "Nice Try. (Try again.)" I always said that we needed an agreement in-place before I received and reviewed your code, and that I was unwilling to accept it until the CLA and License agreement were in-place. Once I said that,
you put up a front that you were never going to sign it. Since you state that you will never sign it, you don't have a license. Q.E.D.

@key4ce:

It's actually my dev that was already convinced there was no way to reason with you and we should fork it after the second email.

I've always said that forks are allowed. Forking requires that you sign the CLA and License agreement, and then follow the terms in the license agreement (attribution, can't call it pfSense, acknowledge that our marks are valid and agree to not challenge them, etc.) Despite all the suspicion here, there is no 'trap'. It's not a method to end up with ownership of your code. It's simply a way for us to defend our marks against people who want to "clone" pfSense and it does the same thing you requested, it puts a condition of acknowledgement of the origin in the bargain.

The thing that people seem to object to is that any code given back has to be given to us with a license to any patents that you have that you (claim) cover the contributed code, and a license to the code to do with as we deem. This was put in to protect the project and community (and yes, ESF too.) I'm not going to detail the backstory here, but there is one.

The 'side-effect' that people seem to find distasteful is a jaundiced read of the language (completely allowed) where we end up being able to use said code in a proprietary product.

Here is the thing about that: When I came into BSD Perimeter (which 'became' ESF), there were 22 private forks of pfSense that BSD Perimeter was being paid to maintain. I've eliminated all 22 of them. Every. Single. Last. One. There was much protest about it, too. People whined that they were losing their private-lable product. My response: "Just run pfSense." ESF doesn't have any proprietary software (there are some fallow repositories, but these are not actively maintained.)

I would much rather that the Key4ce technology was in pfSense than not in pfSense. I'm just unwilling to sacrifice the rest of the codebase to a set of terms that are not Open Source.

So you can accuse me of laying in wait to rip-off your code, but it's not true. It's simply not true.
You (or others) can accuse me of trying to turn pfSense into Vyatta, but it's not true.
You (or others) can say that your license is "open source", but in your case, the Creative Commons license doesn't even claim what you say it does.

I guess I could be deceptive and just agree to your license, and then comply with said license, rather than your interpretation of it. Then what?

@key4ce:

I however thought there was a way to reason with you, turns out my dev was right and we just wasted weeks for nothing while people still don't have a good firewall they can virtualize..

Many people use pfSense in a virtual environment today with success.

@key4ce:

As far as your references to the PFSense license: you might actually want to check your site, as a detailed license isn't to be found.

I've provided links in this thread and elsewhere.

BSD license and GPL license do allow people to dual-license as they please. (meaning our codes can be under our license and yours can stay under yours)

If you are the original author, (or are otherwise the copyright holder, via assignment or otherwise) then yes, you can "dual license". But you can't "dual license" code that belongs to someone else. That would mean you are re-licensing it.

@key4ce:

It also does not fall under "Re-license PFSense" it falls under our codes are under a different license.

This is true. Your code can be licensed in any way you see fit. Granted.

But if said license is not acceptable to the project, then it can't be used upstream.

@key4ce:

Much like the projects PFSense is using fall under different licenses then the PFSense license.

I don't understand what you mean here.

I tried to edit this above 6 times and it wouldn't take. Following the paragraph about "When I came into BSD Perimeter" and "22 forks".

I suppose one could see this as my objecting to forks. Not the case here, as this is about ESF supporting pfSense, not forks of pfSense.
"All the wood behind one arrowhead." and similar sayings. All we do is pfSense. We provide pfSense, we maintain it, we sell services around it, and provide support for it, but we don't sell pfSense. I'm trying to see the pfSense user base and community grow, and keeping pfSense open source aids in that effort.

key4ce

@gonzopancho:

@key4ce:

This is true. Your code can be licensed in any way you see fit. Granted.

But if said license is not acceptable to the project, then it can't be used upstream.

I am just talking about my code, and we do not release "my" code under anything else then opensource.
check ur mailbox, check everything up here and you will see: thats the sole purpose of my resentment of your license.

You don't have to like my license, it's exactly the reason why we moved forward with a fork (Plan B).
We have always been clear about the fork aspect if you do not meet what we seek, and thats not to mess pfsense up, or to get things closed source.
quite on the opposite: we DEMAND opensource and to keep it that way.

WE do NOT relicense PFSense, and we never planned to violate your terms, even now we are still trying to figure out a way to implement 2 of your demands in the license that contridict, and for example in short advertisements –> there will be no way to include your mandatory requirement to the advertisement.

in return we are seeking legal boundry's to your demands, as when you prohibit advertisements it gets in the way with default legal law regarding your license addatives.

That being said: i still seek a way to comply to your terms without compromising basic laws.

I have never meant to violate your licenses, and never said anything otherwise.
You on the otherhand suspended us for no reason even though you still try to justify it, truth be told you given me more then enough reason to never allow you in our source due to your intentions described publicly here. however lets just state i will be the better man on this, as my intentions never changed: a Opensource firewall that is virtualized.

As far as PFsense goes:
Your actually the one in the way of PFSense growth, you turned your own contributors against you.
In short.. if your for PFsense then your for contributions, growth, etc.
as you show with us, and people before us –> you actually have no problem taking it all down, diminishing its existence just because you see it as a threat.
If you just asked them a simple question like "lets publish this in our official repo" --> you would already have a basic hyper-v functionality.

Just your attitude in the original posts already nearly made us fork it from the start, i was hoping there was some reasoning with you but ended up in a waste of time.

You can ask anyone around us: did we want this under PFSense: yes we 100% did, we never wanted to fork it, even now we don't really want to but feel forced to.

In our eyes forks has no point, its actually the main cause why Linux and Unix is SO far behind on everything and failed to succeed.
safe to say: what we are doing is the last thing we wanted, yet we felt like there was no other choice available, we stick to what we believe in, and that includes distributing our codes made for free –> stay for free.

I have a long rebuttal to Marco's comments here, but the forum software doesn't seem to want to allow me to post.

I've sent he and Angelo the rebuttal via email, it's conclusion reads as below.

I could spend a couple more hours trying to figure out what the formatting issue is with my post, but I think the end of it states my issue. I can't sign up to Marco / Key4ce eliminating section 3 of the license agreement, because it leaves pfSense, the community and ESF open to an infringement suit.

On the chance that Marco didn't understand what Section 3 is about, and that he is instead concerned with what I interpret his comments to mean (explained below), I've offered the other dilemma here: pfSense can't be Open Source with the restrictions he seeks.

Suffice it to say that I'm not seeking a fork here, but if Marco demands that pfSense no longer be Open Source, then I will not accept his terms.

@key4ce:

In our eyes forks has no point, its actually the main cause why Linux and Unix is SO far behind on everything and failed to succeed.
safe to say: what we are doing is the last thing we wanted, yet we felt like there was no other choice available, we stick to what we believe in, and that includes distributing our codes made for free –> stay for free.

We're talking past each other now. Let's get back to the subject-at-hand.

Let's assume, for now, that your objection to the Section 3 is really about the "sale" of pfSense, rather than not wanting to grant us a license to any patent you own that would enable you (or a successor party in interest to those patent rights) to claim patent infringement on pfSense via your changes to it.

Let's also assume, for now, that your definition of "sale" is really "collect money in-exchange for a license to pfSense", or even "sell the company that holds these agreements, and the Copyright to pfSense, to a different party, who might "close source" the tree, or at least the parts you contributed to it.

I don't know if I'm right in these, so, if I'm not, then please, explain the scenario(s) that you're concerned about.

Then, please show me any code that has been contributed to a major Open Source project that has the restriction you state.

Linux? Nope.
FreeBSD? Nope.
OpenBSD? NetBSD? Nope, Nope.
FreeNAS? Nope.

Please. Provide me with an example.

I don't think you'll find one. All of these are Free and Open Source software. The GPL won't allow the restriction you state, so all of Linux (and glibc, gcc, etc) won't provide an example.

None of the other projects I've named would allow it either, because they're all proud of being "more open than linux" (read: "the GPL is viral/evil/…") They all encourage commercial forks of their project. They are proud of the commercial forks of their project.

I could provide many other examples.

The MPL has been approved as both a free software license by the Free Software Foundation, and an open-source software license by the Open Source Initiative. So nothing covered by the MPL has your restriction. By extension, nothing covered in this list: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/ or this list: http://opensource.org/licenses/ allows your restriction, either.

This covers most of what people deem "Open Source" and/or "Free Software", Marco.