Where is the pfSense 2.4.x FreeBSD OS source code


  • Banned

    I'm seriously disappointed that this topic needs to be revived once again.

    Reference:

    P.S. Please leave the "Franco's waterboy" out of this thread. I've contributed 0 lines of code to OPNsense, I'm not on their forum and I've refused to join them after the fork. Per GitHub, I've contributed 1,545 commits to pfsense-packages, 211 commits to pfsense/pfsense and 527 commits to pfsense/FreeBSD-ports

    I simply cannot keep recommending/implementing open-source solutions that are no longer open-source. And you cannot keep advertising something as open-source when it isn't.



  • Well i'm not sure if your 10 minute timeframe is realistic.. (yes i have build 2.4dev in the past..) But even if so, you will be building a 2.4beta including bugs solved months ago..



  • Wasn't there a "How to compile pfsense yourself" how-to here 10 minutes ago?



  • Yep, and it got nuked by the author or management.



  • Thats too bad.  I can't speak to the accuracy of it, but it looked like a worth-while comment.



  • Probably it is not allowed to advise people to change the```
    AUTHORIZED BY NETGATE



  • Very odd.  I'm pretty sure thats how pfsense was born.



  • Having the pfSense copyright discussion of a while ago in mind its not that odd.. you may not build something yourself (without intended modifications) and call it pfSense. You should be able to compile it with the name MySense YourSense or something.. DoesThatMakeSense ? :) the 'authorized' variable skips the checks that the name must be changed.. If you do change the name then you can make your own fork and compile it if desired.. with a different name. So something new can still be 'born'/forked or thats the idea at least.. (if i didn't misinterpret anything..) Anyhow recent sources/patches are missing..



  • I could perhaps see an issue with someone making an evil compromised version of pfsense and passing it off as pfsense.

    Name change wouldn't bother me.


  • Banned

    @PiBa:

    Well i'm not sure if your 10 minute timeframe is realistic.. (yes i have build 2.4dev in the past..) But even if so, you will be building a 2.4beta including bugs solved months ago..

    Perhaps it somehow works for someone when the moon phase is right (plus some drops of virgin blood added). The scripts are a deliberate sabotage of that effort, though. The docs vanished ages ago and - as you noted - in the end you end up with outdated, broken system.

    I'm not even interested in rebuilding pfSense as such ATM. I was merely trying to fix kernel panics with LAGG in NAS4Free. Hopeless, because I cannot get the damned patches which I know for fact that are being used here. Top secret open-source. Sigh.


  • Netgate

    I've asked that the thread be unlocked.

    to address the topics presented by 'doktornotor' (does anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much I enjoy responding to anonymous posters to the forum?):

    the documentation was removed (It did not "disappear") because it was no longer accurate.

    As the patches to FreeBSD are matured to a state where they can be upstreamed to FreeBSD, we will do so.



  • Thanks JWT.  (Is that your real name?)
    Kidding.

    It would be nice to know how to create from source an image.  Is there a good how-to anywhere?


  • Banned

    @jwt:

    As the patches to FreeBSD are matured to a state where they can be upstreamed to FreeBSD, we will do so.

    @gonzo: Not exactly the answer I was hoping for. Not only it doesn't help with my LAGG issue, but much more importantly - a product that cannot be rebuilt from available source code is not exactly something that'd fit the definition of open source. There are tons of close source firewalls/routers out there, that's not what pfSense users are looking for, obviously, otherwise they'd just use them.


  • Netgate

    a) we're not convinced that the LAGG issue is correctly fixed yet.

    b) you could always write me directly and ask for that patch.  have you done so?  If you have, I can't find it.  Engaging in this kind of cajoling and hyperbole on the forum is exactly how you drive me to ignoring you (all).

    If the only value you ascribe to pfSense software is that it is open source, that none of the development, integration, Q&A and having a company solidly behind the project are of no value to you, then I suggest that you fork the project and find like-minded people to work on it with you.

    We are, literally, investing millions of dollars in pfSense software and giving the result away to the community for their use.  The only restriction is that commercial distribution is not allowed.  This is because it is how we fund the development.  Without the revenue associated with hardware sales, pfSense would not be developed at the rate the community has enjoyed for the past half decade.

    It's like you're asking for that to stop.


  • Banned

    Why would I be forking the project (doesn't make a particular sense when there already is a fork out there, plus why'd I use buggy half-year out-of-date code for that)? And why should I be writing to someone to get access to source code for a project that advertises itself an open source, with repos on GitHub? Kinda absurd, no?

    Forget the LAGG example, it's a matter of principle. People are using open source so that they avoid the vendor lock-in, so yeah, that's the exact opposite of where you are heading apparently. They want to able to fix the product themselves, or get it fixed by a third-party of their choice, or have it adapted/enhanced according to their needs, and they believe than access to the source code is an essential part of security (e.g., verify that bugs/vulnerabilities have been fixed properly in the source code). Heck, they want to avoid situations when a company goes out of business and they are left with expensive hardware that's unfixable.



  • Or read the code, know its solid and compile from source…  If you can't do that, its all sort of microsoft(ish)

    Not that I need to make my own brew for myself now, but I might later.



  • For me its nice to see when or if something changed would help in troubleshooting new issues or bugs



  • @doktornotor:

    [A]ccess to the source code is an essential part of security (e.g., verify that bugs/vulnerabilities have been fixed properly in the source code).

    Or avoid more nefarious situations. I am not claiming Netgate would, but without source code, it’s impossible to know if Netgate has built in a backdoor for the NSA or is collecting data on users. One purpose behind open source code is to keep everyone honest. Without the ability to verify exactly what’s in the code you use, it’s not open source.



  • @jasonsansone:

    @doktornotor:

    [A]ccess to the source code is an essential part of security (e.g., verify that bugs/vulnerabilities have been fixed properly in the source code).

    Or avoid more nefarious situations. I am not claiming Netgate would, but without source code, it’s impossible to know if Netgate has built in a backdoor for the NSA or is collecting data on users. One purpose behind open source code is to keep everyone honest. Without the ability to verify exactly what’s in the code you use, it’s not open source.

    I am not sure is it possible currently to check the compiled version against the source code, even if you have one and I may be paranoid but you can't trust anyone and anything, remember heartbleed bug?
    Anyway I have to a agree with doktornotor, whatever Netgate say if you claim you software as opensource then make code available to public timely.



  • 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.


  • Banned

    @NineX:

    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.


  • Banned

    @NineX:

    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.



  • @doktornotor:

    @NineX:

    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


  • Galactic Empire

    This thread is starting to look troll-ish. I'm going to move it to general discussion.



  • @NineX:

    @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.


  • Galactic Empire

    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.


  • Galactic Empire

    @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.


  • Galactic Empire

    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.



  • @ivor:

    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.


  • Galactic Empire

    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.


  • Banned

    @ivor:

    pfSense is still open source. Those who question this should probably learn more about it.

    About what? Half-year outdated censored source code? Stop this, it's just harming the project…


Log in to reply