Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why they forked (Score 1) 64

Distinction is in "official" and "endorsed by", etc. But that's beside the point. You can say it's based on Linux, includes it, etc, but you can't claim to be Linux using their trademarks.

Closer comparisons are how CentOS can't claim to be Red Hat: https://wiki.centos.org/RedHat and the aforementioned Iceweasel project not claiming to be Firefox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The lines are less clear in cases where the organizations have granted permission to some groups to use their mark in other ways

Comment Re:Why they forked (Score 1) 64

Right. You can modify a Linux kernel, release your source to comply with GPL, and make your own distro with its own name but you can't modify the source and then claim the result is the official unpatched Linux kernel or claim it is endorsed by the Linux foundation, which is essentially what was happening, from a trademark point of view.

Comment Re:Why they forked (Score 1) 64

If you make a derivative work for your own private/personal use, there's no problem. If you distribute an unmodified copy (no alterations), that's also OK. But when you make a derivative work and and distribute the result (such as selling a modified version of pfSense pre-installed on hardware) at that point it's, a new product.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org...
"A trademark should not be used as part of your product name."

https://www.freebsdfoundation....
"3. If we grant you permission to use the Marks, your use of the Marks must always be fully and clearly reproduced, and you may not incorporate any of our Marks into the trademarks, service mark, logos, name of your business, project, organization, or username, unless you have the express prior written permission of the Foundation."

The pfSense CLA and such closely mirror that of the Apache product. Here is what they say on http://www.apache.org/foundati...
"This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."

The confusing part is that people seem to mix up distributing an unmodified copy (which is OK to put on hardware for sale, so long as the mark is respected) with distributing a modified copy, which they may not realize is now a derivative work and thus violates the trademark. People interpret that as being told they can't sell the software, but what they can't do is sell their own derivative work and call it by someone else's trademark. (See above example, re: Coke)

Comment Re:Why they forked (Score 2) 64

No fairy tale, not money related in any way. It's a damned-if-you-do, f'd-if you don't trademark scenario.

If you defend your trademark, you catch flack for bringing up legal issues and making people follow the law.

If you don't defend your trademark, you can lose it and be worse off.

It's about protecting what it means to be "pfSense", which has little to do with money and everything to do with making sure people don't pass off their own code as being "pfSense".

Comment Re:Why they forked (Score 4, Informative) 64

The problem was not people selling hardware including an unmodified version of pfSense. That's fine and always has been. The problem was people taking pfSense, modifying it in unknown ways, building their own copy and selling the result as still being pfSense, which it wasn't at that point. It was a trademark violation to do that. That and some others were using the trademark inappropriately in various ways on their web sites. See http://m0n0.ch/wall/list/showm... for some more background (it's been posted elsewhere but I had that link handy)

That's like someone buying Coke, adding their own unknown ingredients, re-bottling it, and selling it as Coke. I doubt Coke would be very happy about that, either. Same thing with Mozilla and Firefox vs Iceweasel. The same resolution there applies here as well. Name the product something different and clearly distinct, removing the name "pfSense" and logo, but keeping the copyright/license notices, and then there would not have been a trademark issue.

We had some vendors that were making some really weird changes and then people were coming to us for support on things we didn't do, questioning why things were broken, etc. Since it was still called "pfSense" and it had code we didn't write and wasn't in our repository, there was a lot of confusion even outside the legal problems...

Comment Re:Why they forked (Score 3, Informative) 64

[Disclaimer: I am a pfSense dev of many years and an ESF Employee]
The bulk of that notice is the very definition of FUD.

First: Fear of going closed source. pfSense was never "closed source" (any part of it), and was never not "freely available" despite what they attempt to claim about policy changes. The only time the build tools were inaccessible was for a couple days while the repo was being moved to a private git server. (And it's since been moved back to github, and later made obsolete when the build process was rewritten).

Second: Uncertainty about "direction" -- there have been many blog posts on blog.pfsense.org about the direction the project is going. There is no problem with transparency except what they are dreaming up. Also, OPNsense is run by Deciso, no mention of that in there, so much for transparency.

Third: Doubt -- vague accusations of code and development quality trying to make people doubt the pfSense project source in general.

Comment Re:Giving up on motion control (Score 1) 132

It says in a few places that things can be controlled by "tilting" the Wii U Gamepad, and some things are controlled by turning it sideways and "aiming" using it, so I think it sort of sounds like it actually is a traditional Wii controller in some regards, but there probably won't be any more solid info until more people get their hands on it (or maybe when NDA's expire?).

I like the accuracy of Motion Plus but it loses calibration extremely easy. I constantly had to re-center the controls while playing Zelda: Skyward Sword.

There is also a sports game as a launch title, but not from N, it's an Ubisoft title "Sports Connection", so I'm cautiously optimistic. I think the Nintendoland concept is going to be a lot more interesting than Wii Sports was, at least to me.

I preordered a Deluxe the other day, so I guess I'll all find out eventually. :-)

Comment Re:pFSense support for IPv6? (Score 1) 236

When will pFSense 2.2 be out? And will it still correspond to FBSD8.3, or 9? Also, in FBSD9, there is an IPv6-only option that can be installed, so that developers can test whether their applications really work w/ IPv6. Would any version of pFSense have that, just in case anybody wanted an IPv6 only router and firewall but not any IPv4?

2.2 will be a bit far out yet, not sure. We'll be targeting FreeBSD 9.1 or so for that. We wanted to be on 9.x for pfSense 2.1 but we had far too many issues and backed down to 8.3 which was much easier to adapt. Since 2.0 took so long to get out, we decided to try and do more frequent releases, about every 6 months or so. That's slipped a bit, but we have had some security releases for 2.0.x since 2.0 came out (2.0.2 is coming out in 1-2 weeks) so it hasn't looked like such a long gap as we had between 1.2.3 and 2.0. Using that logic, I'd expect 2.2 sometime before or near the end of the year. It depends on what all we decide to add for it.

If you want IPv6 only, you can do that on pfSense 2.1 now. We have a developer that has a v6-only circuit in .nl and pfSense 2.1 is routing it fine, that's how we've debugged some of the issues. If you want v6 only, you can configure only v6 IP's on interfaces (and set v4 to 'none') or block v4 in firewall rules. What FreeBSD 9 does better there is that you can completely remove it at the OS level as well for things like localhost, which isn't quite so important in a routing role as it would be for a client platform.

Also, would pFSense come w/ a built in DHCP6 server?

Sure, it does Router Advertisements as well as DHCPv6, and they can be configured to work complimentary to each other. Of course since it's wrapped in a GUI there may be certain scenarios you can't do (yet) with DHCPv6 but most things that most people want to do are possible.

Comment Re:IPv6 home router? (Score 1) 236

Anything you can put *WRT or similar on can do it (as others have mentioned in this post). Or if you want to run a software firewall on some spare hardware, pfSense (2.1 beta), m0n0wall, and some others support IPv6 also.

I have seen some ZyXel routers that had IPv6 support in their GUI, which gives me hope. Though I don't recall the specific model. Wikipedia> and Sixxs have lists of routers that do support IPv6 out of the box.

Comment Re:IPv6 multi-homing status (Score 1) 236

1) Is out for people who want automated failover
2) Is prohibitively expensive for most
3) Is interesting, but still early
4) Works fine, now, and provides functional multi-homing. Why discard it? NPt isn't pure evil. It's not ideal, but it gets the job done without requiring all of that extra setup or dynamic routing protocols on top.

Comment Re:pFSense support for IPv6? (Score 1) 236

[Disclaimer, I am a pfSense developer, employee, and book author so I'm a bit biased] :-)

pfSense is based on FreeBSD 8.3 with quite a few things patched in the kernel and base system. We've been doing quite a lot of work lately on getting the last few bits of IPv6 going along with some other features we have in the chamber for 2.1. IPv6 support is the main focus of pfSense 2.1 so changes in other areas have happened but they have been minimal in comparison.

Here is a spreadsheet covering the current status of IPv6 in various areas of pfSense. Some of those will have to wait for pfSense 2.2.

We just got one key feature holding back 2.1 from being released solved, and there are a few more bugs left but progressing rapidly.

Comment Re:IPv6 multi-homing status (Score 1) 236

The cost for PI space and peering is still rather high, even at the "discounted" time-limited rates that are supposed to encourage adoption. I doubt many SOHO operations are going to want to shell out several thousand per year extra for that.

Sure that is the "right" way, but there are other ways (see my other post under this parent).

Slashdot Top Deals

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Working...