Subject: Re: IPFilter license changes
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/30/2001 13:40:37
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 06:05:46PM -0700, David wrote:
> > If Darren has an agreement with NetBSD/OpenBSD/other, what does it
> > matter? You should be thankful that such a product exists, let alone be
> > available at no cost.
> Look at the NetBSD project goals (http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/):
> The NetBSD Project provides a freely available and redistributable
> system that professionals, hobbyists, and researchers can use in
> whatever manner they wish.
> If ipf was just userland it could be continued to be used via the packages
> ipf is integrated into kernel for packet filtering. If this code is
> included for distribution then it goes entirely against the goal above.
No, it doesn't. I have cleared this up with firstname.lastname@example.org and whilst
they appear to be happy that any problems have been resolved, another
effort is required so that email@example.com can convey this to NetBSD
users in a meaningful way. A similar message will also be sent to the
FreeBSD people as I've also been working with firstname.lastname@example.org to resolve
any issues they had. As you may have noticed, I have deliverately not
made any effort to work with OpenBSD because it does not appear possible
to work with the OpenBSD project.
> According to a message just posted to email@example.com (by de Raadt),
> ipf will be removed from OpenBSD within the next 20 hours (and alternative
> solution will be worked on).
Well, there's no telling what Theo is ever going to do. For me it means
life is less of a burden as I don't need to track what OpenBSD is doing
(independantly) with IPFilter so that people can easily import it when
they take longer to do pullups.
I'd kindly appreciate it if people like yourself stopped speaking out of
turn, stirring up trouble, when there is no need, especially as matters
are already being resolved.