[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ipf



John Vernier Simon <john.simon@central.sun.com> writes:

> I think Theo isn't being really cool about this one, I think the term "pissing
> contest" describes the situation. Oh well, I am saddened to see Darren's IPF
> source removed from the OpenBSD tree. I can understand Darren's point of view,
> a lot of people seem to be abusing his code and giving very LITTLE back. Oh
> well the few spoil the cream for the many. Hopefully everyone will come to
> their senses and Theo will put the source back, as IPF was a really big chunk
> of OpenBSD's great security.

Gee. You really can't listen don't you? Or don't you just understand what's
being said?

We can't put IPF back into our tree unless the license changes. IS IT SO
HARD TO UNDERSTAND? How many times do we have to repeat it?
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.

Get it? Or do we have to repeat again and again and again and again?

THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.

It's as simple as that. If Darren changes the license, then we can put it
back. Darren doesn't intend to change the license. So until he does,
STOP WASTING OUR TIME on tech@. Take your opinions to Darren or someone
else. Because OpenBSD will not change it's licensing policy.

It's not a pissing contest. It's just a simple realization that we made a
mistake. When adding IPF into the kernel everyone thought that the license
was compatible with the licensing policy, but it's not. Since we've realized
that now after Darrens clarifications, we have removed the code from the
OpenBSD tree because we don't want to break the law. And by asking us to
include IPF in the kernel you are asking us to break the law. understand?
Or do you want this explained with pictures?

//art