Packages wishlist?

librarymark

I would really like to see dansguardian added as a package. It is far superior to squidguard.

sullrich

@librarymark:

I would really like to see dansguardian added as a package. It is far superior to squidguard.

Already been requested countless times and debunked countless times due to its license.

Cry Havok

@fribert:

Looks VERY interesting. Have you tried setting it up on a normal Linux?

Repeat after me FreeBSD is not Linux :P

librarymark

"Already been requested countless times and debunked countless times due to its license."

How is that? Does that mean I have been using it illegally all this time?

Perry

Prolly not if your a home user, but as i remember it commercial use is forbidden.. But you could do a search :)
Maybe SquidGuard will fit your needs ?

librarymark

I work at a public library. I have used both squidguard and dansguardian. Dansguardian is far superior. Squidguard, while a fine piece of software, is just not enough. The scum that walk in the door at our library found all sorts of ways around it. They have a much harder time with dansguardian.

Am I skirting dansguardian's license using it for a non-profit organization? Even with the license, what difference does that make such that pfsense can't have a package for it?

GruensFroeschli

The first page of this thread: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,2703.0.html explains the problem with dansguardian.

librarymark

All I get out of reading that link is that DansGuardian is free for non-commercial use. That is exactly what I use it for now, in a non-profit public library.

Where exactly is the problem?

GruensFroeschli

Did you even read the thread???

Well, interpreting the license allows us to make the package available at least. And we may even include it into pfSense. The problems start when people start installing dansGuardian on site.

I want to make it part of a unix-like distribution such as RedHat.
Yes.
I want to try it out for potential commercial use.
Yes, but only once.
I want to use it commercially[2].
No, you must buy a download licence.
I want to incorporate it into our product or solution.
No, you must buy a solution provider download licence.

librarymark

Yes - all three pages.

So you make the package such that the end-user has to download DG. OR - the package installer downloads it. Then, as far as I am concerned, if you are not a commercial user, you are within the license.

Did Daniel Barron specifically say that you could not write a package for DG? Did anybody ask him directly? How is it that IPCop can get DG but pfSense can't? Sounds like somebody has a grudge somewhere to me!

GruensFroeschli

No grudge here :)

Maybe you should start the discussion in the other thread again / open a bounty if you really feel that this should be incorporated into pfSense.

sullrich

@librarymark:

Yes - all three pages.

So you make the package such that the end-user has to download DG. OR - the package installer downloads it. Then, as far as I am concerned, if you are not a commercial user, you are within the license.

Did Daniel Barron specifically say that you could not write a package for DG? Did anybody ask him directly? How is it that IPCop can get DG but pfSense can't? Sounds like somebody has a grudge somewhere to me!

He used to work for Smoothwall. Not sure how it fits into IPCOP.

librarymark

If I wanted to write a package for DG, where do I start? Is there a howto for that sort of thing for pfsense?

hoba

@librarymark:

If I wanted to write a package for DG, where do I start? Is there a howto for that sort of thing for pfsense?

Search the forum and read up on http://wiki.pfsense.org

librarymark

Here is part of an email conversation between me and Dan Barron:
–-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello -

First - thanks for a wonderful piece of software!

I use DansGuardian at the public library I work at, and am having great success. I am
also experimenting with the pfsense firewall, and would really like to run some sort of
filter on pfsense. My choice would be DG, but the folks over at pfSense seem to be
scared of your license, and

I don't know why. It's GPL. All I say is if you want to download it from my site for
the purpose of commercial use then pay. Once you have it having paid for the download or
not then it's GPL. You can do what you like with it including redistribute.
–----------------------------------------------------
So I'll say it again: Where is the problem?

sullrich

Its either GPL or not. He needs to make up his mind. This is shady.

freebee

so, is about hamachi again. I see the past post about that, around 2005, and in the freebsd ports system have the port of that. So, the wish is for that package.

scholarlv

I would love to see some sort of Antivirus/Antispyware added to the packages.

tenortim

@sullrich:

Its either GPL or not. He needs to make up his mind. This is shady.

Actually, I just spent some time carefully reading http://dansguardian.org/?page=copyright2 and in fact that is not true. It is perfectly legitimate. Here is the deal:

He is the copyright owner. As such he can license his code any way he chooses to whom he chooses. He doesn't have to license or release the code at all. He is free to release it under multiple licenses as others have done e.g. he could also release under a commercial license which does not require the buyer to feedback changes.
He chooses to make the code available from his website under the GPL to a subset of users. He is the copyright holder. The GPL gives those recipients rights, and they can freely redistribute what they downloaded to their hearts content including giving away the source to commerical entities. The only restriction he is placing is on commercial entities downloading his copyrighted work from his website. In other words, choosing to make your copyrighted code available under the GPL does not place the restrictions on you that a recipient of code licensed under the GPL would be under. Because of the nature of the GPL, even if he chose to give out the code to just one person under the GPL, that person could go on and give it away to the whole world.

Near the top of the page I see

freely (no cost) downloadable from this site for general purpose unix distributions like FreeBSD, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc

so I believe you will find that pfsense is already covered as being allowed to download and use the software freely.

Hopefully that clarifies the situation.

Regards,

Tim

That's your interpretation of his license, but, unless you are a lawyer, a healthy amount of skepticsm needs to be used here. For the record, GPL'd is GPL'd, Dansguardian is not GPL'd if his license is a modification of the GPL. Unless an IP lawyer wants to sort through his license and decide its ok for pfSense to use, I'm sure the devs will stay away from it.