This + all the hullabaloo around Amazon / Elastic should really remind developers to carefully consider the license that they apply to their software. FreeBSD

This + all the hullabaloo around Amazon / Elastic should really remind developers to carefully consider the license that they apply to their software. FreeBSD is licensed under the 2-clause BSD license. The OpenBSD folks have a great license page where they explain their take on why two-clause BSD serves them well[1]: > [...]putting code under an ISC or two-clause BSD license essentially makes the code as free as it can possibly get. Modifying the wording of these licenses can only result in one of the three following effects: > making the code less free by adding additional restrictions regarding its use, copying, modification or distribution; > or effectively not changing anything by merely changing the wording, but not changing anything substantial regarding the legal content; > or making the license illegal by attempting to deprive the authors of rights they cannot legally give away. PfSense ought not lie about what they do, but it's important to note that they are completely within their rights to take FreeBSD, extend it in any way they wish, and never share that back with the community. Other licenses[2] feel differently, and before you release code to the world you should carefully consider where you fall. [1]: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html