6 ms·

I won't defend their demeaning public behaviour towards OpenBSD. I find it revolting. But they did make one donation to this OpenBSD developer. They sent me 3

by stsp 10y ago

I won't defend their demeaning public behaviour towards OpenBSD. I find it revolting. But they did make one donation to this OpenBSD developer. They sent me 3 rcc-ve boards which I am still using for development: http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/www/want.html#rev1.945 http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/www/want.html#rev1.... 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.

notaplumber 10y ago
I've edited my post, will remove it if you think it does more harm to highlight their actions than good.
- stsp 10y ago
  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.
ianai 10y ago
Not necessarily a question for just you, but what have they done, exactly?
cr0sh 10y ago
> 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.
- notaplumber 10y ago
  > if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong? Because even if I buy you a 'free beer', I can still think you're a jerk if you throw it back in my face.
  - Johnny555 10y ago
    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".
    - lvh 10y ago
      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.
    - jeromenerf 10y ago
      > ... a "free beer" ... As in "one beer"? More like the mythical free beer river. Anyway, your point still stand. It may not be a "moral thing to do", yet one could appreciate others not to pee in the mythical free beer river.
    - interfixus 10y ago
      If I buy you a free beer, you are not obliged to say 'Thank you'. Choosing not to do so may still shine a light on your character.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  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.
  - zokier 10y ago
    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.
unethical_ban 10y ago
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.
na85 10y ago
Isn't being able to take more than I give the entire point of the bsd license?
gonzo 10y ago
I've also reversed my stance on openbsd, and personally apologized to Henning. But none of that is public before now.
- notaplumber 10y ago
  Glad to hear it! I hope to see some more comradery between the two projects going forward.
  - sverige 10y ago
    I second that, and hope that you might find a way to build pfSense on the most recent pf. (I know, if I want that, shut up and hack.)
    - gonzo 10y ago
      the most direct path would be to get the OpenBSD pf into FreeBSD, but including all the performance work that has been done.

by stsp 10y ago

notaplumber 10y ago

I've edited my post, will remove it if you think it does more harm to highlight their actions than good.

stsp 10y ago
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.

ianai 10y ago

Not necessarily a question for just you, but what have they done, exactly?

cr0sh 10y ago

> 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.

notaplumber 10y ago
> if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong? Because even if I buy you a 'free beer', I can still think you're a jerk if you throw it back in my face.
- Johnny555 10y ago
  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".
  - lvh 10y ago
    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.
  - jeromenerf 10y ago
    > ... a "free beer" ... As in "one beer"? More like the mythical free beer river. Anyway, your point still stand. It may not be a "moral thing to do", yet one could appreciate others not to pee in the mythical free beer river.
  - interfixus 10y ago
    If I buy you a free beer, you are not obliged to say 'Thank you'. Choosing not to do so may still shine a light on your character.
throwaway2048 10y ago
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.
- zokier 10y ago
  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.

unethical_ban 10y ago

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.

na85 10y ago

Isn't being able to take more than I give the entire point of the bsd license?

gonzo 10y ago

I've also reversed my stance on openbsd, and personally apologized to Henning. But none of that is public before now.

notaplumber 10y ago
Glad to hear it! I hope to see some more comradery between the two projects going forward.
- sverige 10y ago
  I second that, and hope that you might find a way to build pfSense on the most recent pf. (I know, if I want that, shut up and hack.)
  - gonzo 10y ago
    the most direct path would be to get the OpenBSD pf into FreeBSD, but including all the performance work that has been done.