5 ms·

I have been using ZeroTier(https://www.zerotier.com/ https://www.zerotier.com/) much simpler solution to setup.

by riston 7y ago

Naac 7y ago
Doesn't sound like it's Open Source to me. "A commercial license is only needed if you want to offer a paid network management service or embed it into a proprietary device or app." I would stay away from software that wants to restrict how you use it.
- whycombagator 7y ago
  From their site: > commercial license is only needed if you want to offer a paid network management service or embed it into a proprietary device or app. A cursory look suggests that it's open source, with restrictions that they clearly list on their site here[0]. I get your point, but I personally don't mind if a business open sources their software and allows free use of it for non commercial cases. [0] https://www.zerotier.com/pricing/ https://www.zerotier.com/pricing/
  - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
    That's not open source. They make the source available but open source does not restrict what you can do with it other than sometimes requiring that you share the source for your binaries.
    - L-four 7y ago
      Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. FOSS Free open source software also gives you the rights to use the source.
      - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
        Thats RMS's fringe definition of OS but the widely accepted OSI definition is that open source software does not restrict your rights to commercial use.
      - closeparen 7y ago
        FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom, eg. copyleft and anti-tivoization. Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache. With these idiosyncratic restrictions (noncommercial, research only, do no evil, etc) we typically say “disclosed source.”
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        frank2 7y ago
        >Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache. Wrong: the GPL for example is defined as open-source by the Open Source Initiative (source: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses) -- a fact that has not changed since the coining of the term "open source" over 20 years ago.
        liability 7y ago
        > FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom No it doesn't. You're thinking of copyleft licenses. FOSS is not synonymous with copyleft; many FOSS licenses (recognized as such by RMS and the FSF) are not copyleft.
        closeparen 7y ago
        Whoa, you’re right. I definitely remember reading a tirade against permissive licenses that I thought was FSF’s position, but I see they do explicitly recognize permissive licenses as Free Software.
      - frank2 7y ago
        >Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. No, that is "source-code available". "Open source" was defined over 20 years ago by this document and that is still how most software people still use the term: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
      - m463 7y ago
        RMS wrote about free software and open source (which is different): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
        Polylactic_acid 7y ago
        RMS has basically single handedly tried to push "Open source can be proprietary, only free software is good" Every other orgs definition has had Open source mean the actual license is open. "Free software" is also an absolutely awful term because for 99.9% of the population "free" means it didn't cost them any money. This will never change no matter how hard RMS tries because its a very common and understood word.
        gnomewascool 7y ago
        According to RMS, in the link posted above: > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. and he definitely doesn't claim that open source is proprietary.
    - m-p-3 7y ago
      Open source and the developer's choice of license that let you do or not do something are two separate matters.
      - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
        They aren't. The open source definition requires allowing commercial use https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Many closed source programs and libraries allow the users to see and modify the source code for their own use but that doesn't make them open source.
- nerdkid93 7y ago
  Their library version is GPL-3.0, so I'd say while everything might not be open source, some of their utilities are: https://github.com/zerotier/libzt https://github.com/zerotier/libzt
- nif2ee 7y ago
  > Doesn't sound like it's Open Source to me Your parent's comment didn't even mention the open source issue here. Stop harassing startups with open source products just because you make 6 figure merely doing nothing all year.
iampims 7y ago
You could also use https://tailscale.com https://tailscale.com which has, subjectively, a much nicer UI and iOS integration.

I have been using ZeroTier(https://www.zerotier.com/ https://www.zerotier.com/) much simpler solution to setup.

by riston 7y ago

I have been using ZeroTier(https://www.zerotier.com/ https://www.zerotier.com/) much simpler solution to setup.

Naac 7y ago

Doesn't sound like it's Open Source to me. "A commercial license is only needed if you want to offer a paid network management service or embed it into a proprietary device or app." I would stay away from software that wants to restrict how you use it.

whycombagator 7y ago
From their site: > commercial license is only needed if you want to offer a paid network management service or embed it into a proprietary device or app. A cursory look suggests that it's open source, with restrictions that they clearly list on their site here[0]. I get your point, but I personally don't mind if a business open sources their software and allows free use of it for non commercial cases. [0] https://www.zerotier.com/pricing/ https://www.zerotier.com/pricing/
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  That's not open source. They make the source available but open source does not restrict what you can do with it other than sometimes requiring that you share the source for your binaries.
  - L-four 7y ago
    Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. FOSS Free open source software also gives you the rights to use the source.
    - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
      Thats RMS's fringe definition of OS but the widely accepted OSI definition is that open source software does not restrict your rights to commercial use.
    - closeparen 7y ago
      FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom, eg. copyleft and anti-tivoization. Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache. With these idiosyncratic restrictions (noncommercial, research only, do no evil, etc) we typically say “disclosed source.”
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - frank2 7y ago
        >Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache. Wrong: the GPL for example is defined as open-source by the Open Source Initiative (source: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses) -- a fact that has not changed since the coining of the term "open source" over 20 years ago.
      - liability 7y ago
        > FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom No it doesn't. You're thinking of copyleft licenses. FOSS is not synonymous with copyleft; many FOSS licenses (recognized as such by RMS and the FSF) are not copyleft.
        closeparen 7y ago
        Whoa, you’re right. I definitely remember reading a tirade against permissive licenses that I thought was FSF’s position, but I see they do explicitly recognize permissive licenses as Free Software.
    - frank2 7y ago
      >Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. No, that is "source-code available". "Open source" was defined over 20 years ago by this document and that is still how most software people still use the term: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - m463 7y ago
      RMS wrote about free software and open source (which is different): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
      - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
        RMS has basically single handedly tried to push "Open source can be proprietary, only free software is good" Every other orgs definition has had Open source mean the actual license is open. "Free software" is also an absolutely awful term because for 99.9% of the population "free" means it didn't cost them any money. This will never change no matter how hard RMS tries because its a very common and understood word.
        gnomewascool 7y ago
        According to RMS, in the link posted above: > The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. and he definitely doesn't claim that open source is proprietary.
  - m-p-3 7y ago
    Open source and the developer's choice of license that let you do or not do something are two separate matters.
    - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
      They aren't. The open source definition requires allowing commercial use https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Many closed source programs and libraries allow the users to see and modify the source code for their own use but that doesn't make them open source.
nerdkid93 7y ago
Their library version is GPL-3.0, so I'd say while everything might not be open source, some of their utilities are: https://github.com/zerotier/libzt https://github.com/zerotier/libzt
nif2ee 7y ago
> Doesn't sound like it's Open Source to me Your parent's comment didn't even mention the open source issue here. Stop harassing startups with open source products just because you make 6 figure merely doing nothing all year.

iampims 7y ago

You could also use https://tailscale.com https://tailscale.com which has, subjectively, a much nicer UI and iOS integration.