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

Re: ipf



On 31/05/2001, Artur Grabowski <art@blahonga.org> wrote Cc tech@openbsd.org:
> 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?

What I don't get in this part, is why Daren didn't say anything in
advance. I think, it's safe to asume that he knew that OpenBSD was
changing the source and also redistributing that.
Some SSH/OpenSSH memories come alive ..
And the stuff about "dont giving back changes" .. erm, he could
fetch the changes (which are not allowed in advance!) from CVS at
any time.

For the tech-relevance, I would prefer to see a (personal) solution
between darren and the OpenBSD team. As the license says that *with
permission* it's possible. 
Now pushing ressources into a new packetfilter or using ipfw as a code
basis wastes time like hell (like these mails, sorry). Which could
be better used for integrating new stuff (SMP ;) ) or fixing new
drivers (i82652 :>).

> THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
It would allow it, if darren would give a permission to openbsd ..

ciao
-- 
Philipp Buehler, aka fips | sysfive.com GmbH | BOfH | NUCH | <double-p> 

#1: Break the clue barrier!
#2: Already had buzzword confuseritis ?