Subject: Re: ipf's future
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/28/2001 21:28:20
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 08:52:25PM -0400, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:15:42PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > Not just talking about it. But it is already happening.
> > "pf is now developed in the OpenBSD CVS tree (-current)"
> > http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf.html
> Yes, and the collective coding talent being brought to bear on the
> project is impressive. Very impressive. There is no reason to think
> that this effort will not be as successful as the OpenSSH project.
> > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/basesrc/dist/ipf/LICENCE hasn't
> > changed in a while.
> NetBSD should endorse and/or support and/or contribute to this
> project. Now. Not later. Now. Or explain why not...
OpenBSD trollers should stop wasting everybody's time on the mailing
lists of other projects. Now. Not later. Now. Or explain why not...
I think we've rehashed this issue more than enough. Whining that
you didn't see an answer that satisfied *you* doesn't really count
as a worthwhile use of everyone's bandwidth. The fact that OpenBSD's
principals have managed to antagonize Yet Another open-source
project should be news to nobody; neither should the fact that
their abusive, disruptive behaviour towards anyone who refuses to
sing their favorite tune (in this case, refusing to change the
license on an *unreleased, non-public, beta* version of ipf) has
greatly inconvenienced them. You will note that NetBSD does *not*
distribute such a version of ipf, because we are polite and take
the trouble to coordinate with ipf's author.