Slashdot Log In
lpf Removed From OpenBSD
Posted by
timothy
on Wed May 30, 2001 07:27 AM
from the outta-there! dept.
from the outta-there! dept.
A nameless reader writes: "A few hours ago Theo DeRaadt removed the ipf source from the OpenBSD cvs tree in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf. Theo's remarks on the licensing change are visible in the commit log
here." Theo notes there that "software
which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they
people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including
modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching
machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia." That's keeping things all-purpose all right ;)
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
It doesn't attempt to infect code it touches. It's goal is to form a club of Free Software users and Developers. It's not a malicious goal, although it could be harmful to proprietary software developers.
Nobody is forcing you to join the club. If you find it repulsive, make sure you aren't developing software against GPL'd programs, or make sure they are Lgpl'd. It's very simple.
Of course, if you are just an GNU basher, that's not saying very much for you personally. I can udnerstand your sentiment, but I dont think you can extrapolate sentiment to a generalized condemnation of a software license. Think hard about other people's freedoms to do whatever they damn well want to, including join a software club that furthers their interests.
Companies that use GPL software know very well what they are getting into. IBM has a literal army of lawyers analyzing every legal move the company makes. They dont consider the GPL a threat to their "intellectual property" if IBM follows a few guidelines about its use. And if they do use GPL software wisely they stand to benefit greatly. They are already wagering 1 billion dollars on GNU/Linux, a GPL'd Operating system, with the calculation that it will pay off greatly.
Maybe you should reconsider the fallacies you've just propounded. They are obviously wrong and misleading.
Re:Freedom! (Score:4)
Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom. True freedom is being able to do *anything* with the source, commercial, redistribution, or whatever. If some commercial company picked up and supported my favorite GNU-based app, I'd be thrilled, even if they didn't release the source. If they did something that was that special a value-add, they should be recognized for it. And the open source community is free to clone their features in as free a form as they see fit.
I really wish more people saw the GPL as having the hampering effect that it does; let it truly be free; let the market forces and the open source cloners and innovators determine how the code evolves and branches. If someone uses it commercially, make them give credit, but don't make them give up their value-added code which they make their living with. If the changes are useful, someone will clone 'em! If they can't, then the company is really adding something special; don't restrict or disincent them from doing so by forcing them to give up the rights and privacy of their proprietary addition.
WRONG, Linux uses Netfilter (Score:5)
Re:Stupid Slashdot Moderation (Score:2)
I regularly notice the wrong label tacked on after I moderate something--and it's not always even in the right direction (although the direction may be right even if the label is wrong).
hawk, still pushing for a "funny" choice in meta-moderation
Lawyer: it's not clear who misunderstood it (Score:3)
>THEY misunderstood the license
That's far from clear. WHat he "meant" is not dispositive (or even relevent). The meaning of the license is determined by the words used in the license, possibly modified by context (e.g., the number of nominally GPL licensed projects that have had one or more terms of the GPL revoked by the use of non-assimulable libraries and the invitation to compile and distribute).
Out of context, that license doesn't give permission to modify. Given the standard usage of the words he used and his target audienc, it might well give permission.
From the information currently available, a jury could decide either way.
The moral of the story is to have a lawyer involved when choosing your license. Many projects have come to grief by using words or actions that they didn't mean, or by assuming that the GPL did what they wanted.
hawk, esq., suffering through netscape as slashdot has another anti-lynx day
Re:GPL Purist can learn from you.... (Score:3)
Of course, the difference is that Free Software hackers aren't generally interested in "borrowing" commercial source code. Nobody would whine about the GPL if the only code that was released under it was the Pascal version of "Hello World." To commercial developers GPLed software is like being lost at sea without any fresh water. There is plenty of useful code, but using it would be poisonous.
When push comes to shove its just sour grapes. They want to be able to use other people's code without sharing their own. The GPL won't let them do that.
Re:And everything ends (relatively) well (Score:3)
The OpenBSD people get their wish, and all the code they distribute is completely free of any restrictions on use, modification, etc.
And OpenBSD users are left without any firewalling solution. I'm using OpenBSD for a couple of firewalls, and without IPF, they're just useless boxes sucking up electricity. The sad thing is that I agree 100% with Theo. I just wish they'd taken a more pragmatic approach, and kept IPF in the tree until a suitable alternative could be written. I suppose, though, that removing it will increase the pressure to write such a replacement, which might otherwise have been a back-burner project. Oh well, I guess at least I still have my OpenBSD 2.8 CDs around...
what extra freedoms does BSDl offer? (Score:2)
Accordingly, the only way you might benefit from the BSD license over the GPL is if you were writing or using a proprietary program.
In this case, who are you to complain about freedom?
Re:Freedom! (Score:2)
Exaclty what piece of GPL code they need for their commercial software.
Proof that that piece is not actually under the LGPL or any of the zillion LGPL-like licenses, or under another free license, or available commercially.
Proof that there is no equivalent piece of software available commercially.
Documentation showing that they attempted to contact the author and get them to relicense the code in a way that it could be used in their commercial product, and were turned down (note that any price quote does not count as being turned down!)
A convincing argument as to why they could not clean-room reverse engineer the code.
This rather simple set of requirements will restrict the submittors of these messages to the actual commercial software developers who are seeing their business destroyed by the GPL. Unfortunately the number of these is exactly ZERO.
Re:Freedom! (Score:2)
Re:Darren - wrong? (Score:2)
Sometimes software needs to be modified. If Debian doesn't like where you put your files, we need to modify the code to change where you put the files. If there's a serious security hole, we need to fix it now, not when he gets back from vacation in 6 weeks. If you die, then we would like to continue making needed bug fixes and improvements.
"it's just software - not like the world will cease spinning"; this is one of personal pet peeves, people minimizing the importance of what other people care about. Very little will stop the world spinning; the complete extinction of the human race could happen and probably wouldn't touch it all. But OpenBSD needs the ability to modify the software, so a small group of people is probably going to spend many hours working on the code for a new firewall. Others are going to have to consider modifying their current firewalls or not updating them. To those people, this problem will take up many hours that could be spent doing more productive things. To me, it's just an example of why we care about licenses - because people will have to spend those hours.
Re:Touchy? Defensive? Of course. (Score:5)
If someone misunderstood the license, he had a responsibility to
People aren't as pissed about the licensing as the way it was done.
For the love of God... (Score:2)
Re:And everything ends (relatively) well (Score:2)
This incident shows one reason why the FSF asks for copyright assignment on code submitted. With a legally binding agreement, you don't get nasty surprises later on. Of course it is a complete pain and some people refuse to do it (one of the reasons for the Emacs / XEmacs fork).
Re:Add iptables to *bsd (Score:2)
Also, ipfilter is a little easier to set up than iptables, iptables uses shell scripts with a BUNCH of commands, while ipfilter uses a configuration file, I would expect that the OpenBSD people would want to stay with the config file approach, and they will probably try to make it compatible with ipfilter config files, or at least have an emulation layer like ipfilter has for ipchains and ipfwadm.
Re:No problem with Net/FreeBSD, though... (Score:2)
Say what you will about Theo, but there's no denying the fact that he's just as fanatical about BSD-licensed software as RMS is about GPL'ed software.
That's to be respected, even if you don't agree with them.
Theo makes the point... (Score:5)
What Theo does not show what BSD should be. It shows the very nature of software. And BSD recognizes this very nature as a principle of use. Unfortunately many people attempt to overcome a natural fact by putting licences and restrictions. Much like the "bridge taxes" that were so common on the Middle Ages. Taxes were not only made on bridges built by the owner, but also on ancient roman bridges, bridges built by the community or third parties. Frequently taxes rose to absurd levels, which lead to clashes and even small wars. Something very similar can be seen in todays software.
Meanwhile there is a danger that Theo might have got too far. First because Australia surely will further see OpenBSD as a national menace. Second because Theo seems to live in California and there seems to exist a very weird rule there that considers even sugestions of using atomics as a terrorist threat... So time for Bush to switch out his NMD plans in exchenge for the new BSD (Berckley Software Defense) program... Considering the fact that BSD is red and has a small devil playing around with a fork, it will be absolutely easy for the conservative minds at Washington to readapt to the new threat:
"The Reds are coming!"
"The Red Evil menace"
"It's the devil in cheap... o damn... sheep clothes. Anyway it's in cheap clothes also..."
Free for any purpose? (Score:2)
Unless, of course, the method they choose to use for redistributing it is dd-ing the OpenBSD CD into a file, then making the file available for download.
-
Re:Freedom! (Score:2)
Besides, aren't you telling us what freedom means?
(not, btw, to dispute that the GPL makes more restrictions than the BSD license, but it is inaccurate to put "socialist" as the diametrical opposite of "freedom")
Re:You don't seem to get this... (Score:3)
Read carefully:
* Copyright (C) 1993-2000 by Darren Reed.
*
* The author accepts no responsibility for the use of this software and
* provides it on an ``as is'' basis without express or implied warranty.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given
* to the original author and the contributors.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
*
* I hate legaleese, don't you ?
*/
Contrast that with the BSD license and observe that
Reed's license does not allow redistribution in modified form:
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
Re:You don't seem to get this... (Score:3)
1) use it in source and binary forms
2) redistribute it in source and binary forms
One could argue that using the software includes doing the necessary modifications for it to run on your system and whatnot, although I doubt if this would stand in court, however I belive that Darren wouldn't mind you fiddling with his source.
You have no right whatsoever though, to redistribute modified versions of his software in any form, simply because he hasn't explicitly granted you that right. To do this, you would need his permission from day 0, and all he did was clarify the license, not change it.
Its Okay... (Score:3)
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
Precisely! GPLd software is not written for everyone, only a certain select few. They'll let you use it, but if you want to touch, you'll find that their definition of "freedom" only applies to club members.
The FSF and many GPL supporters are communitarians. They believe that the community is more important than the individual. They don't want individuals to own software, they want the community (or the FSF) to own the software, which is why it's still copyrighted and owned. They don't like the BSD and MIT licenses because users from outside the community are not required to play by community rules.
Just as the politicians in the material word holds the wants of the community in higher regard than the freedom of the individual, the Free Software Movement(tm) holds the the community's want to control the software distribution in higher regard than the freedom of the individual developer.
RMS has long looked for a less misunderstood term than "Free Software". How about "Community Software". It fits their meaning and it's easy to understand. And as a benefit, it de-emphasizes "freedom", which in the FSF rhetoric, has always played second fiddle to the "common good".
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
All societies have rules which restrict behaviour. These rules may benefit your freedom in the positive sense. The simplest example I can think of is the law that you must drive on the left hand side of the road. This, and other traffic regulations, keep traffic flowing as smoothly as possible and greatly assist you in your goal of getting from A to B. This is why you never hear people complaining "But I want to be able to do what I want with my car!"
Of course, positive freedom doesn't make any sense without some societal context. I think when people criticise the GPL they miss the social dimension of the free software movement. RMS's idea was to create a community of people who would cooperate with each other. The GPL is just a statement of the rules you must obey in order to be part of that community. And of course, you always have a choice about whether you want to take part or not, unlike the society you were born into.
Touchy? Defensive? Of course. (Score:4)
Folks, it is not for us to tell the author of ANY code what he can or cannot do with it.
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
Bwa ha ha ha. With the GPL you can view the code, use the code any way you want, and change it in any way you want, and redistribute it freely.
And that's "more demanding" than, say, Microsoft's license, where you can't view the code, can't use the source code, can't even use the binaries in some ways(!), can't change the code, and can't redistribute it freely?
Or if you are part of the "shared source" club, maybe you can view the code. But you still can't change it, use it, or redistribute it.
Or maybe you sit down and negotiate a source code license from some software company with a proprietary license. (That might take a month or two.) Now you can view it and use it and maybe change it, in some limited and restricted ways. You will have to pay, of course... probably a lot.
"But", you cry, "Now I have the freedom to keep my changes secret!" Well guess what, you can do exactly the same thing with GPL'ed code: Go negotiate a secondary, non-GPL source code license with the developer! Exactly like you would with a closed-source license!
"But", you whine, "The developers of the GPL'ed code don't want to do that, or they want a lot of money for an alternate license!"
Well boo hoo! If you don't like the terms, write it yourself! Or go talk to Microsoft and see what cheap, easy, friendly terms they give you for source code access. Don't be ridiculous. "More demanding than any closed source license". Yeah right!
>I'm all for the creators of software controling >what happens with it but the GPL rubs me the >wrong way when it seeks to control other works >that the original author did not create.
That is a self-contradictory statement. Creators of software who release it under the GPL are simply exerting some minimal control over what happens to it, which you say you have no problem with. Now, since the GPL does not seek to control _independent_ works that have nothing to do with the GPL'ed code, when you say that "the GPL rubs you the wrong way" you must not like that it has some minimal control over changes to the original work by the author. The only control is that the modified source must continue to be available. But that's the WHOLE POINT of the GPL, and that's why the authors released it that way... which you say you don't have a problem with. So which is it?
To summarize: Everyone who complains about the GPL either:
1. Does not understand it, or,
2. Wants to leech from the Free Software community by taking and not giving.
I have yet to see a counterexample.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
It's completely voluntary. If you don't use GPLed code, you don't need to GPL your application.
If the best libraries out are under GPL, that's an incentive to use them, but nothing prevents your writing your own libraries. If *all* the libraries out are GPLed, you can still write your own, just like the original authors did.
The GPL can never make it harder to write proprietary software than it already is, well, than it is to do without ripping off someone else's code. But if you're a good programmer you shouldn't need to do that.
If having a closed source application is so important to you, write it yourself.
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
We have used BSDL code in the past and our lawyers told us to not release the source code for our modifications. We might be held liable for it in some way, or we might discover some tiny use for it later that we couldn't properly exploit if it was public.
But when we started using GPL they didn't mind. They realized that following the GPL is a cost of business and that it's well worth it for us to not have to rewrite all that software ourselves.
If there's no requirement for our company to release source, the tiny possibility of future lawsuits keep us from going there (because there's no benefit to offset that risk). As soon as there's the smallest requirement for us to release source, we do. Lawyers require a cost/benefit analysis and won't do *anything* without something on the benefit side.
So in my experience, the GPL is a good thing. It got a lot more source released that the BSDL would have.
The BSDL is good for things you want people to incorporate into everything, like TCP/IP, or JPEG support, but for most other things, the GPL gets my vote.
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
Wrong. That is the price of redistributing an application based existing code that has been released under the GPL. That's a pretty specific set of circumstances. You must a) develop code, b) redistribute said code, and c) said code must be based on code that was GPL'd. Unless all three conditions are met, no violation has occurred. Since you must specifically choose to use the GPL'd code, calling it "viral" is FUD at it's worst & most obvious.
competition in baby mulching business... (Score:4)
from Darren Reed:
IPFilter no longer available... [false.net]
No problem with Net/FreeBSD, though... (Score:4)
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2001/05 /30/0004.html [netbsd.org]
Oh, and Reed's message above is some kind of Theo de Raadt-oriented flamebait :-)
And everything ends (relatively) well (Score:4)
The OpenBSD people get their wish, and all the code they distribute is completely free of any restrictions on use, modification, etc.
Two lessons to be drawn from this mess:
1) Carefully read the licenses on code you intend to use before you actually use it, and feel free to get any questions you have cleared up. The worst that can happen (in theory...) is that the lawyers give you an answer you don't like, and you can't convince the developer to agree to otherwise. Which leads to the second lesson:
2) Don't use code you can't/won't adhere to the licensing restrictions for. Free/OSS licenses are rooted in copyright law, using it in an unorthodox fashion to allow instead of restrict freedom, but still relying on its existence for their own. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL code. If you can't use Windows without being able to see the source and fix patches on your own, and you don't have a whack of cash for the right/the stomach to sign the NDA, don't use Windows code.
If the developer's being a bit of a jerk about an ambiguous part of his/her license, screw 'em, switch to a freer/Freer alternative. There's tons of GPL'd and BSD'd code out there for the studying and using; why waste your time trying to pry a privilege from someone who doesn't want to give you that privilege?
I know, I know - easier said than done, and I'm sure you have several objections and points to bring up. Point being, it could have been much, much nastier. As it is, Reed's code won't benefit from the advantages of open source/free software as quickly as the BSD/GPL alternatives will, but if that's the way he wants it, fine by him. That's his right, just as it's Theo's right to tell him to shove off and take his code with him.
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
How can a license "try" to "infect" things? Does it have a mind of its own?
and "Forced infectious freedom?" who is forcing you to release your code under the GPL exactly?
I agree with you about the market forces choosing, but thats exactly what IS happening NOW! and they seem to favour the GPL over *BSD style licences so far judging by the rate of code released under each.
Now that I have disagreed with most of what you said, I must add that I personally prefer BSD style licenses for my own code but I am respectful of the choice of others (and yes it was a choice, dont give me any more of that "viral" crap) to use the GNU GPL, often because of their distrust of many large corporations who might "steal" their code otherwise.
No you can't - at least without violating license (Score:4)
I think you missed a point...
The license (as "clarified") bans modified versions.
The version used with OpenBSD is modified.
So they had to take it down.
Now you have two choices:
Download and install a copy of the modified version. This violates the license.
Download and install a copy of the UNmodified version. This means you don't have the OpenBSD modifications.
Now since the whole POINT of OpenBSD is that it has been heavily vetted for security bugs, do you REALLY want to install the UNmodified version? Of the FIREWALL code?
Re:Oh dear. (Score:4)
Re:No problem with Net/FreeBSD, though... (Score:3)
Examples of (historically) non-BSD licensed software in FreeBSD include softupdates, vinum, and the FPU emulator for non-FPU 386/486s.
General principles have included
1. the piece is optional and the kernel works fine without it. (true of all of them)
2. the piece offers functionality that is otherwise unavailable. (true of all of them)
3. if the piece is "major functionality", it will become BSD-licensed at some future time. (true of vinum and softupdates)
I don't know what the core teams will say, but I'm speculating (purely speculating) that IPFilter will probably fall into the "major functionality" segment, so it will probably need to eventually become BSD-licensed to survive.
But, I'm not sure. Generally, I respect FreeBSD-core to do the right thing.
need developers! (Score:4)
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
Incorrect.
You don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use the product. If you have the source, you don't have to agree to the GPL in order to view it or modify it. Thus, you can modify or use any GPL-ed product to your heart's content. Go nuts.
However, you cannot distribute your modifications unless you agree to the GPL.
This is a subtle but important distinction that many people miss. You may still have a problem with the GPL, but it is incorrect to state that it prevents any use by dissenters.
Can we please end this argument? (Score:3)
Some open source programmers don't mind if their code is used in closed-source products. Some do. I don't think the FSF would like it one bit if some company extended a GNU program without releasing the source, even if it was a significant value-add.
Personally, I prefer to use the LGPL. Most of my work is in libraries, and I want anyone to be able to use them in any project. However, I wouldn't want anyone to pull a Microsoft-style embrace-and-extend on me. The LGPL prevents that. And yes, I have considered switching to a BSD-like license from time to time, but that doesn't mean that I think everyone should.
If you don't like the licensing terms placed on a piece of code, don't use it. Write your own.
------
FreeBSD and NetBSD Won't help OpenBSD out here... (Score:5)
The idiots on =deadly.org didn't help the situation. A bunch of whiny jerks got all obnoxious. Additionally, the mail bombing of personal attacks from slashdot/deadly was EXTREMELY counter productive.
This is a delicate situation where OpenBSD conceivably broke copyright law and sold CDs as a result.
Diplomacy was needed here, and all this reporting was counter productive. I love OpenBSD, but this was unfortunately Theo's doing. The version of IPFilter in OpenBSD was modified, and the author was never notified. While BSD and GPL licenses don't require notifying the author, common decency does. Unfortunately, an unspoken goal of OpenBSD is to have better software by keeping their changes kinda quiet. You could build a product off OpenBSD, but migrating OpenBSD's changes into FreeBSD is problematic. Given how much gets taken from FreeBSD, this is kinda obnoxious. Nobody really calls OpenBSD on this because it is a small userbase. We only run OpenBSD because the servers we run need very few applications, and the OS+Ports gives us that quickly without cruft. However, the political issues in OpenBSD are a little sad.
Net/Free will stay away from this pissing match with a 10-ft pole. They may hope for a Free (BSDL) filtering package to show up, but they won't get involved in Theo and Darren's pissing match. If OpenBSD gets one working (and likely will in the next 6 mo., OpenBSD's coders are as brilliant and competant as Theo is obnoxious...) FreeBSD and NetBSD may migrate to OpenIPF. However, until they have something done, there is no reason for them to back Theo.
Theo, good luck and happy coding. I wish you would pick up some diplomatic finesse, it would make your life easier. Either way, love the system and look forward to my OpenBSD 2.9 CD.
There was NO licensing change. (Score:4)
"in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf."
Get this through your heads: There was no licensing change. None. The terms of the license have not changed at all.
IPFilter was never under a BSD-style license. It never mentioned the right to modify. The way copyright works is that any right not explicitly granted is implicitly reserved. Thus since the right to modify is not explicitly granted, it is implicitly reserved (ie, denied).
Lots of people read the license and either saw the word "modify" where it didn't exist, or assumed that the right to "use" includes the right to "modify", which it in a legal sense it does not.
Because of this state of confusion and false assumption, Mr. Reed clarified his license by adding the statement, "Yes, this means that derivative or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent. "
The addition of this statement to the license in no way changed the terms of the license itself. Any previous version of the code bearing the unclarified license still implicitly denies granting the right to modify. Now any version of the code bearing the clarified license merely explicitly denies the right to modify. No real change there.
What so worrisome about the license now that people understand it is that there is no possibility of legally fixing the code in the case of Mr. Reed's refusal or inability to do so himself. Nor is there any possibility of creating a legal fork of the code since there is no point from which to legally fork it.
GPL==Vaccine, !=Virus (Score:5)
In a truly free market (i.e., without the temporary monopolies granted by "intellectual property"), the GPL would be redundant because everyone would already have all the freedoms you describe. The GPL isn't a virus, it's a vaccine. It keeps the intellectual property market from destroying itself. Salk could have taken a patent out on the polio vaccine, but he said that "would be like patenting the sun". We don't have many people with that much character these days.
Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom.
What a lovely little rhetorical flourish you add with the phrase "infectious". How is this different from laws which coercively restrict your freedom? The old dictum "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" applies here. The idea of enforced freedoms requires that a little liberty be given up so that more total liberty will be available for more people. The GPL is just an example of the democratic system at work.
Intellectual property law (rather than the GPL) is the root of the problem, creating artificial monopolies without achieving its stated purpose of fostering innovation. This is what clogs up the market, and the GPL is the most powerful weapon available to keep information and ideas available to the public rather than in the hands of faceless corporations.
Bryguy
Hopefully... (Score:3)
Uhg. (Score:3)
Seriously though, this sucks. Big ones. Though it lacks a couple of features I'd like to see, all in all, ipf is pretty badass. I'll miss it. And even if Darren changes to a BSD license or GPL's it, chances are OpenBSD will never use it again. Theo can hold a grudge like that.
The question is, will FreeBSD and NetBSD follow suit?
You missed the point (Score:3)
Freedom! (Score:4)
Developing open source software with a license that doesnt give the freedoms like the BSD and GNU GPL [gnu.org] license will only hurt the community. Simply because not many will want to use it. So instead of another developer wasting time doing the SAME THING over again under a license with freedom, he could be doing something truly innovative.
When will they learn!
Re:Freedom! (Score:3)
Whew - good thing Linux went with netfilter. (Score:3)
"Why waste effort developing a new packet filter? Just use ipf." I guess it's not wasted effort anymore. ;-)
Re:No problem with Net/FreeBSD, though... (Score:3)
My guess is the former has happened, which then raises of the issue of how many BSD developers will be happy about continuing to work on something that, in some cases, they've decided to work on because of "freedom" issues concerning Linux (and the oh-so-hated GPL)?
Either way it's a nasty can of worms. Reed is entitled, of course, to control the licencing of his project as he sees fit, but at the same time, the onus is on free operating systems to eschew non-free components. On the conversations on OpenBSD journal [deadly.org] Reed has indicated somewhat strong hostility to the idea of free rivals to IPFilter being produced. But just as he has the right to restrict the use of IPFilter, so he cannot prevent others from producing replacements, and has to expect that if he overly restricts use of IPFilter, that will have negative consequences for the future of the IPFilter project.
It's his ball. He can take it away. He can only let people he thinks are his friends play with it. But if he forces his friends to play by his rules only, rules contrary to those his friends want to play, those friends may disappear and play with others, and he can't stop the people who aren't his friends from getting their own ball.
All of which is a shame. IPFilter is a good product. It'll be a waste to see it go.
--
Darren - wrong? (Score:3)
Imagine I patch the ipf code to open up a door... I then distribute (say) binaries of my 'ipf' package... who gets the bad press? Darren. Obviously not fair.
So use it, don't use it... it's just software - not like the world will cease spinning because of a license change!
--
The only thing worse than a programmer with a screwdriver is a user with an idea!