Where is the pfSense 2.4.x FreeBSD OS source code
-
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?
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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the project (doesn't make a particular sense when there already is a fork out there, plus why'd I use buggy half-year out-of-date code for that)?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
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
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 ;)
