Netgate/pfSense has been notoriously anti-community, with their own co-founder attacking other projects, including a recent fork called OPNSense.
They've also been very hostile towards the OpenBSD developers, and project. Despite the fact they've effectively built a business on OpenBSD innovations, like pf and CARP, even incorporating the name 'pf' into their trademark having not contributed a bit of code.. n̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶i̶m̶e̶ (but perhaps some hw).
But feel free to keep using it.. no need to take my word for it.
They took much more than they have given (which the source code licence allows them to do, even if it's morally wrong). Claiming they never gave anything at all is incorrect.
> They took much more than they have given (which the source code licence allows them to do, even if it's morally wrong).
I don't want to start a flame war, but if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?
That is - how can you complain when the license explicitly allows for this? If you (not you personally, of course - but the OpenBSD project) didn't want this to happen, then the license would need to be changed to prevent it.
Of course then, companies wouldn't be as willing to use the code, as we tend to see with the GPL.
But if companies are just going to take the code, modify it, and not contribute the changes back (or contribute little back), where's the loss by using another license?
If the loss is "but the code then won't be used in the greater ecosystem", why complain when it is?
Again - I'm not trying to cause a flame war; everybody has their license and needs. I'm just trying to understand why there is complaints when code isn't contributed back under the BSD license, when it explicitly allows for this.
Furthermore, I am wondering if there is anything we can do about it, that doesn't cause the kind of ire to rise when the GPL is invoked instead. Perhaps there isn't a solution, but I'd love to hear ideas on the subject.
There is a difference between forcing what you believe to be right onto others via legal means, and wanting people to do the right thing because it is moral to do so.
And yet there are many thriving GPL projects, running on billions of devices worldwide, from routers to servers. GPL has created an environment where Netgear and Linksys collaborate on developing the same pieces of software, not due to morals, but due to it being the best option for themselves. Same with IBM and many other companies working on GPL sofware.
> not due to morals, but due to it being the best option for themselves
Indeed, and this is why the same thing happens in the BSD world. There are many examples of large and small companies, competitors, working on the same parts of FreeBSD.
Enlightened companies contribute to Free and Open Source software because it's in their best interest, not directly because of the license. Conversely, there are countless examples of companies who don't think it's in their interest, and willfully violate the GPL.
I think the contributions under discussion here are monetary, not code, so the GPL doesn't have much to do with this. pfSense is open source, so the code is available.
Personally I find antagonizing non-contributing users more morally objectionable than the non-contribution.
Of course I'm speaking generally, I don't know the backstory here so there might be some other things causing the bad blood. But I would prefer we as a community would not attack people/companies just for not contributing.
> I don't want to start a flame war, but if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?
I can legally walk down the street cursing at everyone I meet. I can try to learn things about people, and then use that to make them feel terrible. I can start a business that intentionally preys on people in bad situations in ways that will make them worse off.
I'm allowed to do all that. I believe doing any of them are varying degrees of morally wrong.
One should never confuse law and morality. They are not the same, and what's worse than confusing them is trying to make them the same.
I think a more apt analogy would be if you buy me a "free beer" and I drink it, then you're upset because I didn't buy you a "free beer" in exchange. If the beer wasn't meant to be free, then don't license it as "free beer".
The specific claim was not that pfSense merely used the technology, but also that they were hostile to a variety of community projects, including OpenBSD itself.
> I don't want to start a flame war, but if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?
Because laws and moral codes differ. As an absurd example, it is legal (in most countries?) to cheat on your spouse, but it's not considered morally okay (otherwise it wouldn't be called "cheating").
Behavior is one thing, but what is so wrong about "taking" more than "giving"? Isn't the development of a firewall distribution, and the provision of professional services around it, a good service in itself?
Kind of like Greg Hartman fussing about Canonical not doing kernel contributions, as if that's the sole metric for being a Linux distro.
Please don't remove your post. Pointing out these issues is very important, and making one donation should not indemnify people who behave in this way.
Eh, I wouldn't use the response to OpnSense against them. I tried the first few "releases" and walked away screaming (this was before I ever used pfSense). Lost configurations, routing issues, locked out of the interface, stability problems, and more. But it looked pretty, right?
Uhh, you got on the wrong ship if you think Ubiquiti has nothing to defend, your employer is a constant and consistent GPL violator[1], and due to the constant failures and overpromisiong on features (TDMA in particular) alongside the serious supply chain issues Ubiquiti has had over the past decade, your major customers are dumping your hardware en mass[2].
I don't see Solar or IoT cameras/switches/power strips saving Ubiquiti either, the fiber CPE might buy your company a few months of runway, if supply issues don't strangle it tho.
You mean "glad you no longer have to make excuses for your inability to lead the project into the future."
The recent changes in direction and actual tackling the hard problems has not gone unnoticed by me / others in the community. Kudos to the current team.
Hilarious, brand new account with one post. Another Jim sock account or one of his minions, they have a ton of them all over the Internet spewing garbage.
Anyone who's actually paid attention to the history wouldn't respond with that vitriol.
They've also been very hostile towards the OpenBSD developers, and project. Despite the fact they've effectively built a business on OpenBSD innovations, like pf and CARP, even incorporating the name 'pf' into their trademark having not contributed a bit of code.. n̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶i̶m̶e̶ (but perhaps some hw).
But feel free to keep using it.. no need to take my word for it.
https://www.openbsd.org/donations.html
http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/contributors.html