A hardy "Welcome!" to OPNsense!

IANAL but if I was on a jury I would be inclined to consider you defending "sense" a stronger position than "pf". tcpSense, ipSense, fwSense, etc vs. pfWall, pfEase, pfBarrier, pfPerimiter (?!?) etc. pf existed before the project.

You're not a lawyer, but we have IP lawyers (who specialize in trademark) on retainer.

kapara

I would agree that changing the license without warning would cause some alarm. If it is just that you must use the name pfSense then that is not too troubling to me. I think the real concern is whether or not the long term goals of where pfSense is going is of more importance. Many times I have used open source products and to depend on the product and then the company switches gears and offers a stripped down community version and a paid version which has all the features.

I have not read anything leading me to believe this but I also have not read anything contrary to this. I think having another option is good as I really don't see it as being harmful to the pfSense project unless the goal for Netgate is to lock it down and force users to pay for the product. I am not expecting Netgate to disclose what their future plans are for pfSense but not knowing does create a cause of concern for some.

I have been using pfSense for many years and will continue to do so until given a reason not to like limiting the functionality, charging for the software, or forcing me to use Netgate branded hardware only.

phil.davis

I am not expecting Netgate to disclose what their future plans are for pfSense but not knowing does create a cause of concern for some.

Netgate is not the same as pfSense. But of course Netgate is selling hardware with pfSense on it.
ESF (the pfSense company) has provided a roadmap here: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=89436.0
For the next few years we all know what the direction is.

Link fixed (I hope)

kapara

Link does not work.

kapara

Glad you like the comment. Thank you for fixing the link and I did read through it. By the way the link mentions nothing regarding the "road map" regarding licensing. The post discusses the future development. It makes no reference to the major changes which are referenced here on the opensense website.

And since last year they are not freely available any more, you need to apply for access with ESF. We believe a good open source project has nothing to hide so access to the sources should be there for all. It will remain a mystery why ESF made that move as commit rights and read rights are totally different.

https://wiki.opnsense.org/index.php/OPNsense:So_why_did_we_fork%3F

Transparency A real concern with pfSense is transparency. Since Netgate bought the majority share of pfSense and renamed the company to ESF it has been difficult to understand the direction they want the project to go. Removing the tools from github without prior warning and using the brand name to fence of competitors has scared quite a lot of people. Also the license has changed for no apparent reason…

Understand I personally have no issue with the changes as of yet as it has no negative impact to the way I use it though ESF nor Netgate made any reference to these changes in that post.

Derelict

As I understand it, the principals are:

Chris Buechler (cmb)
Jim Pingle (jimp)
Jim Thompson / Netgate (gonzopancho)

Also, as I understand it, netgate is not pfSense and pfSense it not netgate but there was an investment into ESF by netgate. Might be all wet, but that's what I recall. A mutually-beneficial alliance is how I think of the two companies after all that happened. Don't need to know and don't much care about the details.

phil.davis

you need to apply for access with ESF

The process for that is automatic:

Make an account on pfSense portal
Go to the license agreement page and click to agree to the license
Give it an SSH key

Then you automagically get access to the pfsense-tools repo - you need to install GitHub somewhere, with your SSH key, and clone the repo.

As I understand it, it is just about making sure that people know and agree to the license conditions, which includes understanding the trademark/s… and thus what they would need to do if they want to fork the code, rebadge...

Actually the code itself is freely available to clone, inspect...

Derelict

I thought gonzopancho was Jim Thompson but cmb just stated in that other thread that he doesn't do the forum so ??? :/

phil.davis

@Derelict:

I thought gonzopancho was Jim Thompson but cmb just stated in that other thread that he doesn't do the forum so ??? :/

I am also confused by that - maybe gonzopancho is a puppet whose real name happens to also be Jim Thompson?
Do puppets have real names?

athurdent

@phil.davis:

@Derelict:

I thought gonzopancho was Jim Thompson but cmb just stated in that other thread that he doesn't do the forum so ??? :/

I am also confused by that - maybe gonzopancho is a puppet whose real name happens to also be Jim Thompson?
Do puppets have real names?

Hmm…
https://twitter.com/gonzopancho
Can't find the thread Derelict refers to, but I'm also wondering why gonzopancho switched to guest status recently.

Supermule

Really weird.

bennyc

@athurdent:

Can't find the thread Derelict refers to, but I'm also wondering why gonzopancho switched to guest status recently.

the thread -> https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=88244.msg518420#msg518420

jdillard

@athurdent:

I'm also wondering why gonzopancho switched to guest status recently.

He closed his forum account recently, that's just how SMF represents it now.

magnifico

What are differences between pfsense and opensense? How about bugs? Do opensense have the same bugs as pfsense?

Derelict

It's not a bug.

magnifico

@Derelict:

It's not a bug.

What is not a bug? Do you want to say that pfsense dont have any bug? I wasnt seen such software before, without any bug. If you say that pfsense dont have any bugs and even dont interested to find out this and you are developer, then this makes pfsense just "unknown and not trustable software"…..All developers are interested about possible bugs to find out, to fix them before someone other user installs software.

cmb

@magnifico:

Do opensense have the same bugs as pfsense?

Mostly yes, plus more as they broke things that worked, and haven't kept up to date on things we've fixed, even just the short list of security fixes. Even when I was kind enough to tell them about a serious file corruption bug that we fixed, they "fixed" it in a way that doesn't actually fix the problem.

cmb

@magnifico:

@Derelict:

It's not a bug.

What is not a bug? Do you want to say that pfsense dont have any bug? I wasnt seen such software before, without any bug. If you say that pfsense dont have any bugs and even dont interested to find out this and you are developer, then this makes pfsense just "unknown and not trustable software"…..All developers are interested about possible bugs to find out, to fix them before someone other user installs software.

Of course we are. Derelict isn't a developer, and I think his reply was in jest.

Supermule

http://forum.opnsense.org

Enroll and ask the same there. Great bunch of guys and extremely helpful!

jdillard

@cmb:

@magnifico:

@Derelict:

It's not a bug.

What is not a bug? Do you want to say that pfsense dont have any bug? I wasnt seen such software before, without any bug. If you say that pfsense dont have any bugs and even dont interested to find out this and you are developer, then this makes pfsense just "unknown and not trustable software"…..All developers are interested about possible bugs to find out, to fix them before someone other user installs software.

Of course we are. Derelict isn't a developer, and I think his reply was in jest.

It was in reference to this thread: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=95969.msg534018#msg534018