[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: pf vs ipf
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: pf vs ipf
- From: David Benfell <benfell_(_at_)_greybeard95a_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:17:24 -0700
- Mail-followup-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Reply-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:15:03 -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> He then released an OpenBSD 3.0 with ipf in place of pf. Now some
> folks are even more annoyed.
Someone has written me privately, pointing out that the BSD license
allows Darren to do these things, and saying that the real beef is
with his continued reliance on the real OpenBSD lists for support.
Fair enough. But I'll also stand by my original comments, at least
until more thoroughly beaten down. My thoughts regarding Darren are
1) He brought all this on himself.
2) Just because a license allows you to do something doesn't mean that
you should. Most people would probably think that forking a BSD over
a single program would be silly. When that program happens to be one
that the forker is the author of, I believe that vindictiveness better
Which leads us to...
> I am reminded of the old advice regarding mud wrestling with a pig.
> You'll both get filthy but the pig will like it.
3) Darren isn't merely being a parasite in that he expects the real
OpenBSD lists to provide support for his product. This goes well
beyond that, and everyone who's ever written a program will understand
Even if the license says it's okay.
David Benfell, LCP
Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html
[demime 0.98d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]