Where is the pfSense 2.4.x FreeBSD OS source code
-
Guys!
Hold on!
We need to distinguish two things:
pfSense as a product is an combination of more than one project, FreeBSD (BSD Licensed), and pfSense(Apache License) - bunch of fancy scripts + webgui to configure underlying OS…BSD License differs from GNU GPL! Netgate is NOT OBLIGATED to share any single line of code. do i like that: no, do i accept that: yes
To be honest right now i can take pfsense as a whole , skin it, add 2 lines of code, name it theSense, then close source and sell it as my product, as long i will display information about source origin. -> look to Apache and BSD licenses.
Second thing is an easiness of compilation. my previous posts was deleted by me, as i decided to verify on my own environment if i will able to build form whole thing from source.
Now i can honestly say, yes it isn't easy, but still possible if you have basic shell skills, 2 brain cells.
-
If you spent same amount energy on actually programming, probably you should be able to show middle finger to netgate and have working 6rd in mainline kernel BTW.
-
BSD License differs from GNU GPL! Netgate is NOT OBLIGATED to share any single line of code. do i like that: no, do i accept that: yes
This thread needs more pics :P So far there's just one in the OP, so here's another from the 2.4.0 release announcement (it's exactly the same with 2.4.1).
Netgate clearly realizes that the source code is important for their customers and their users. And since this thread needs more pics, as said, this pretty much sums it up:
-
As I said BSD nor Apache license don't obligate Netgate to publish single line of code.
The fact that other projects are unhappy as Netgate created something that gives them advantage on the market and refuse to share, we can put with same bookshelf when we should stick Carol Marks books…
We have capitalism, for Netgate pfSense is business, so they can try to use fact that they have something that no one else have. It's called competition.
Same we can say about Change of trademark policy... Netgate lives from selling pfsense hardware and selling support, honestly i don't know single person who will buy support for pfsense, as it's quite easy do manage... (someone probably will...), but look to aliexpress, you can buy cheap china hardware that have pfsense instaled, and it's not good, because they only manufacture hardware, software is taken from opensource project for free without any support to project itself.
Look from wider perspective, let's assume that you created opensource project, committed your life into that project. You have family to feed, so you need to get paid for your work.
so you created store with hardware platform for your software, you are selling good product, you are selling support , access to additional documentation.
it's good, people who don't wish to buy it, can still use your product on they own.
win , win
then your competitor try to demand access to features that he is missing. (LOL)
and china starts to sell cheaper boxers with your product....
i believe if your whole business can collapse because of that, you will do whenever you can to stay in buisness.Honestly i am unhappy to that Netgate din't commuted they changes upstream, but FreeBSD license not obligate them, so who care?! (ah i know people who don't have enough tallent or resources to code/fix those things on they own)
Really this post should be closed, this discussion is waste of time.
IMHO if you need to have something fixed in FreeBSD , any other BSD based project, feel free sponsor developer time, or fix it on your own.
Welcome to BSD Reality. -
As I said BSD nor Apache license don't obligate Netgate to publish single line of code.
I'll be perfectly fine with them NOT publishing a single line of source code (and will seek alternative solutions) as soon as they stop advertising their product as opensource. You cannot really be half-pregnant, it's either open-source or it isn't. Not to mention that such false advertising is illegal.
-
Opensource and communism get a bad rap when people do it wrong.
-
As I said BSD nor Apache license don't obligate Netgate to publish single line of code.
I'll be perfectly fine with them NOT publishing a single line of source code (and will seek alternative solutions) as soon as they stop advertising their product as opensource. You cannot really be half-pregnant, it's either open-source or it isn't. Not to mention that such false advertising is illegal.
then force google to stop calling android opensource ;P same situation. (and android is more complicated case as linux is on GPL …)
If you take Android Source, you can fairly compile os, but it will be mostly unusable as most of stuff is closed source in Android Play Services.
Or worse, Samsung din't shared any line of code for they CPUs , so comunity is unable to do custom roms for top level samsung devices....in general assuming that company behind BSD licensed software will share anything is WRONG.
pfSense is opensource.And one more thing, that i heared from other source FreeBSD patches done by Netgate will be reported to upstream soon.
When ? I don't know.and to be more specific:
pfSense is only buch of php code managing FreeBSD OS
you can even install it on clean isntallation of FreeBSD, it will work in most cases.
the fact that netgate did some changes in FreeBSD, changes nothing. -
@w0w:
More pics, yes! ;D
Heh you din't understand…
opensource isn't communism.
but opensource is more than GPL approcach when all are equal.Opensolaris was considdered as opensource... look in details you will see how much of code wasn't never released to be public.
RIP OpenSolaris ;)Technically even OSX is opensource!!! Xnu (Kernel) Darwin (Userland) is fully opensource... Apple keeps only Graphical interface closed... (i am wondering when they will try to use this as an argument in marketing materials "Use OS X - We are opensource!")
-
I remember watching the updates from the early apple stuff tons of .deb
-
This thread is starting to look troll-ish. I'm going to move it to general discussion.
-
@w0w:
More pics, yes! ;D
Heh you din't understand…
opensource isn't communism.
but opensource is more than GPL approcach when all are equal.Opensolaris was considdered as opensource... look in details you will see how much of code wasn't never released to be public.
RIP OpenSolaris ;)Technically even OSX is opensource!!! Xnu (Kernel) Darwin (Userland) is fully opensource... Apple keeps only Graphical interface closed... (i am wondering when they will try to use this as an argument in marketing materials "Use OS X - We are opensource!")
Lets do less pics, please remove picture from qoute. BTW it was sarcasm, I do like any good working code no matter is it open or closed ;)
-
The crickets from management are getting louder.
-
You must have missed JWT's response. You know who's that, right?
-
Yes, I know who he is. I didn't think his answer was very informative. I didn't appreciate his complaint about anonymous users, as if that had anything to do with anything. I also don't appreciate threads being locked because someone is asking inconvenient questions, even if they're being asked in an abrasive manner. If dok was being unfair, smack him down with facts. If he was being incorrect, correct him and teach the rest of us at the same time. Complaining about tone and then locking the thread just looks like you're trying to dodge the issue being discussed.
I don't really have a horse in this race since I am not a programmer and wouldn't know what to do with pfSense source code if I tripped over it. However, I do support the philosophy in that for you to call yourself open source, your recent code must be available and able to be compiled. I realize that different people have different opinions of what makes open source "open", but those two for me are the biggies. I have no idea about the veracity of dok's claims, but if in fact the source is many months out of date and very difficult to compile then to me that is not following the spirit of open source, merely the letter.
-
I will do pretty much anything (I have witnesses and accusers)
But I'd never troll. The subject of code, is near and dear to my heart. I find it interesting.
-
@KOM:
I also don't appreciate threads being locked because someone is asking inconvenient questions, even if they're being asked in an abrasive manner. If dok was being unfair, smack him down with facts. If he was being incorrect, correct him and teach the rest of us at the same time. Complaining about tone and then locking the thread just looks like you're trying to dodge the issue being discussed.
Thread was locked temporarily to prevent drama until I got in touch with Jim. Thread was unlocked shortly after that with Jim's response. I don't know where was this complaint about tone you're referring to.
Perhaps you are talking about dok's rude pm's to me after the thread was locked? You may be referring to dok's second thread which I rightfully removed because it had comments like "Who the hell locked the source code topic without having the balls to answer there?". Rules apply to everyone, we're not asking for too much, just basic mutual respect and politeness.
-
I don't know where was this complaint about tone you're referring to.
Probably from the other thread.
Perhaps you are talking about dok's rude pm's to me after the thread was locked?
Well no. How would I be aware of PMs you receive??
Rules apply to everyone, we're not asking for too much, just basic mutual respect and politeness.
No argument from me there.
I can't help but notice you didn't address anything I said in my reply other than the 'tone' comment.
-
I don't really need to respond to every statement. Jim replied but you didn't think his answer was informative.
I can't help but notice how deeply concerned open source "individuals" show up only when they need something from us. I can't help but notice there's no concern when individuals and companies sell hardware using our trademarks. I don't see a concern when many sell pfSense even if hurts the pfSense project. I haven't seen much concern about certain projects "forgetting" our copyrights even though they are behind this nonsense. Or when certain companies want to take our trademark from us. Same crowd is the loudest when they need something from us. So that's why I feel I don't need to respond to every statement or accusation.
I didn't see much concern when an individual and his friend behind pf2ad plugin, which is SAMBA fueled nightmare that supposedly connects pfSense with Active directory, took over our Facebook group with over 10,000 members. All of mods were banned and they used the group for selling their own products and services . Result? When we complained to Facebook they deleted the group. 10,000 members group gone. Nobody cared.
For AES-NI heads-up or little pop-up saying "don't sell pfSense" we get moral lessons and lectures on how to run our business but when it comes to matters that are directly hurting pfSense project, zero interest from the same crowd. When we announced AES-NI requirement for future pfSense, at one point someone called a Netgate CEO (Jim's wife) a pedophile. Few weeks back when the "Absolutely No Commercial Distribution Is Allowed" pop-up appeared we got several "open source advocates" call and yell at our sales staff. We were threatened with lawsuits and I quote "everything possible to destroy the project".
Individuals and companies who profit the most from our multi-million dollar investments will not lecture us about open source. We welcome them to invest the same amount of effort, knowledge and resources and then they can make demands.
-
I can't help but notice there's no concern when individuals and companies sell hardware using our trademarks. I don't see a concern when many sell pfSense even if hurts the pfSense project. I haven't seen much concern about certain projects "forgetting" our copyrights even though they are behind this nonsense. Or when certain companies want to take our trademark from us.
You continue to miss the point. I respect your Intellectual Property. You have every right, moral and legal, to protect your IP. It is understandably very difficult to protect IP when it is made open source. People will abuse, bend, or ignore the licensing terms under which the source code is provided. If protecting the IP is proving too difficult to do and interfering with your profits simply close the source. However, it appears you want it both ways. As many others have stated, code is either open source or it isn't. Don't plaster "open source" on every single piece of marketing material and then complain about the difficulties of protecting your IP when forum members ask where the source code is.
-
I think you are missing the point above. I suggest you read it again. pfSense is still open source. Those who question this should probably learn more about it. Before asking more questions read what I wrote above.
