Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Netgate Announces pfSense Plus With Greater Divergence From pfSense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    One is having some source code available, the other is having zero source code available. That is a major fundamental difference, I'm not sure how I can put that any simpler for you.
    ROFL. So, if they release sources of iptables or some other random package they did use in mikrotik device, it's fundamental difference how? Without "proprietary glue" they don't give you any further insight into inner workings of device.

    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Source code availability of modifications they have made is not "useless" to end users. If Mikrotik have made bug fixes or critical improvements to the code, that code is now available for users to attempt to upstream or encourage/pay a developer to upstream. Following your logic, any source code is useless to an end user and therefore open source is useless to end users, history has shown otherwise.
    Irrelevant, they are using quite old kernel versions and on odd arches (mipsbe,mmips, tile, arm). Bigger problem is them backporting upstream bugfixes.
    "my logic" is not what you seem to think it is: "my logic" is that there is no FUNCTIONAL difference in 'openness' between BSD licensed software and GPL licensed software when hardware vendor really doesn't want to be open.

    "My logic" is that vendor has many options to hamper your ability to see into inner workings of their devices and sources of software working on the hardware, even when it comes to using software parts licensed to GPL. It's called "following the letter of the law but breaking the spirit"

    Publishing single pieces of some software components and leaving out the proprietary "glue" between the GPL components is no better than me sending you to download.freebsd.org when you demand sources for PS4. I am sure you'd get some right 'pieces' from there, lol.

    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    You're conflating a device being locked down with there being no use for any source code availability. It's certainly not great to have a locked down device, but having the vendor share their changes is still a lot better than nothing. No one credible is saying that the GPL, or any software license, is a panacea.
    Not really, when hardware itself happens to be proprietary or unavailable to general public otherwise. And when vendor's own hardware stays locked..

    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    If you get triggered by it, stay on BSD forums.
    You boyo aren't the one telling me where to stay.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Volta View Post
      Proprietary treating bsd as a whore? Nothing new.
      Thank you for providing live example of typical attitude of a die-hard Linux fan.

      Funny, coming from a fanboy of something that's as good as being controlled by IBM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Dennis-Netgate View Post

        I'm aware of what happened in the past, but I've been here 2 years working in the community and what happened then is not my style . To your main point of why have a CE version. Some users will prefer an open-source version of pfSense and we want to keep this as an option for them.
        Ah allrighty , so the plus / regular pfSense is closed source while the pfSense CE is open source. Very well, not fan of that kind of fragmentation so I assume that I will be sticking with OPNSense for now. From personal experience they have a really good product. That being said I have a feeling that they will take the same route as you guys, so I'll be keeping a close eye on pfSense in the future. Cheers and sincerely good luck with pfSense - some healthy technical competition is good!

        http://www.dirtcellar.net

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by aht0 View Post
          ROFL. So, if they release sources of iptables or some other random package they did use in mikrotik device, it's fundamental difference how? Without "proprietary glue" they don't give you any further insight into inner workings of device.
          You keep repeating yourself, having their changes made public is way better for the ecosystem than nothing at all. If they modified anything GPLv2 they have to give back all changes, so in your example it follows that the only actual change they made were to iptables and that would be it. If in reality they modified other components released under a copyleft license, then yes, they'd have to share those changes as well.

          Originally posted by aht0 View Post
          Irrelevant, they are using quite old kernel versions and on odd arches (mipsbe,mmips, tile, arm). Bigger problem is them backporting upstream bugfixes.
          "my logic" is not what you seem to think it is: "my logic" is that there is no FUNCTIONAL difference in 'openness' between BSD licensed software and GPL licensed software when hardware vendor really doesn't want to be open.
          Obviously open sourcing anything doesn't generate an immediate functional difference, someone has to use or modify the released code. A locked down device isn't avoided, but to claim all released source code is a priori useless is comical.

          Originally posted by aht0 View Post
          "My logic" is that vendor has many options to hamper your ability to see into inner workings of their devices and sources of software working on the hardware, even when it comes to using software parts licensed to GPL. It's called "following the letter of the law but breaking the spirit"
          Yeah you're just repeating the GPLv3 tivoization argument.

          Originally posted by aht0 View Post
          Publishing single pieces of some software components and leaving out the proprietary "glue" between the GPL components is no better than me sending you to download.freebsd.org when you demand sources for PS4. I am sure you'd get some right 'pieces' from there, lol.
          Wrong, in your hypothetical if the OS Sony used was copyleft Sony would have to publish all changes made.

          Originally posted by aht0 View Post
          Not really, when hardware itself happens to be proprietary or unavailable to general public otherwise. And when vendor's own hardware stays locked..
          Yep just the same old "if it doesn't fix everything it's useless" argument.

          Originally posted by aht0 View Post
          You boyo aren't the one telling me where to stay.
          Just sending it right back to you. Have fun with your persecution complex.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Space Heater View Post

            Wrong, in your hypothetical if the OS Sony used was copyleft Sony would have to publish all changes made.
            Wrong, in that case Sony wouldn't publish any changes, because they wouldn't have made any. What you fail to understand is that the decision on whether to give back changes happens first, and you choose the code to work on based on that.

            What GPL forces you is to give away all your changes, immediately. Meanwhile with BSD it's your decision what to share and when. If your theory was valid, permissively-licensed software, from PostgreSQL to Python, would be dead. Which is obviously wrong - most of the Open Source is not copyleft.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by trasz View Post
              Wrong, in that case Sony wouldn't publish any changes, because they wouldn't have made any.
              In what way was my statement wrong? You even quoted what I said, "Sony would have to publish all changes made.", so if Sony made zero changes that is still consistent with what I stated. However, Sony would definitely have to make changes to any "off the shelf" OS as they are developing a fairly customized product, a game console.

              Originally posted by trasz View Post
              What you fail to understand is that the decision on whether to give back changes happens first, and you choose the code to work on based on that.
              Right, they (Sony in this case) did not want to give back IP that they consider to be a competitive advantage and so they were inclined to choose a permissively licensed OS. As evidence, you can look at the commit log for FreeBSD and see that Sony has not contributed much at all back the FreeBSD project. I've never argued that it was a wrong business decision for Netgate or Sony to choose FreeBSD for their products.

              Originally posted by trasz View Post
              What GPL forces you is to give away all your changes, immediately. Meanwhile with BSD it's your decision what to share and when.
              Yes we are all aware of that.

              Originally posted by trasz View Post
              If your theory was valid, permissively-licensed software, from PostgreSQL to Python, would be dead. Which is obviously wrong - most of the Open Source is not copyleft.
              What theory? Clearly permissively licensed projects can be successful. You are conveniently inventing the absurd stance that I believe all permissively licensed projects will die and that there is no reason to use a permissive license. This whole discussion was about whether or not the GPL can provide tangible benefits to users compared to permissive licenses. If you followed the original discussion, I am arguing against the notion that there is no functional difference between a permissive and copyleft license, and you seem to agree with me on that.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
                What theory? Clearly permissively licensed projects can be successful. You are conveniently inventing the absurd stance that I believe all permissively licensed projects will die and that there is no reason to use a permissive license. This whole discussion was about whether or not the GPL can provide tangible benefits to users compared to permissive licenses. If you followed the original discussion, I am arguing against the notion that there is no functional difference between a permissive and copyleft license, and you seem to agree with me on that.
                And the answer is, no, it doesn't really provide any important benefits to the users. If the company wants to share the source code, they will, otherwise they won't. The license doesn't matter all that much, because, as explained above, you choose the license depending on whether you want to share, not the other way around.

                GPL does provide some benefits to the original author, see MySQL. But it can also hurt the users and the community, see MySQL

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by trasz View Post

                  And the answer is, no, it doesn't really provide any important benefits to the users. If the company wants to share the source code, they will, otherwise they won't. The license doesn't matter all that much, because, as explained above, you choose the license depending on whether you want to share, not the other way around.
                  Your argument is literally: "the license doesn't matter because the company wouldn't use the license (since the license obviously does make a difference)".

                  The choice of license does matter and does have a functional impact, and that's *exactly* why some companies choose to avoid copyleft licenses. No one is saying that companies typically choose a license before thinking about what they want to share, you're arguing against illusions.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
                    Your argument is literally: "the license doesn't matter because the company wouldn't use the license (since the license obviously does make a difference)".

                    The choice of license does matter and does have a functional impact, and that's *exactly* why some companies choose to avoid copyleft licenses. No one is saying that companies typically choose a license before thinking about what they want to share, you're arguing against illusions.
                    The choice of license of course does matter - some licenses make life harder for everyone, some don't. What I'm saying is the choice of copyleft license doesn't work the way GNU zealots often assume (as demonstrated above).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by trasz View Post
                      What I'm saying is the choice of copyleft license doesn't work the way GNU zealots often assume (as demonstrated above).
                      Ah yes, I'm a "GNU zealot" because I think there's a functional difference between permissive and copyleft licenses, and that I assume companies choose them based on those differences.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X