lpf Removed From OpenBSD

A nameless reader writes: "A few hours ago Theo DeRaadt removed the ipf source from the OpenBSD cvs tree in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf. Theo's remarks on the licensing change are visible in the commit log here." Theo notes there that "software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia." That's keeping things all-purpose all right ;)

Comments

WRONG, Linux uses Netfilter

[drsoran]

You're looking for netfilter for Linux 2.4. Two different projects. As far as I know, netfilter is GPL'd since it is included in the kernel. It probably has everything ipfilter does except a BSD license. If you're just looking to build a stateful firewall it should work fine.

Re:Touchy? Defensive? Of course.

[buysse]

Did he ever try to correct the "misunderstanding" by the OpenBSD project? They were violating his license, if you go with the idea that he just clarified and did not change the license. Why didn't he tell them before now?

If someone misunderstood the license, he had a responsibility to /tell/ them before they became dependent on the code. It's seen as a change, because he's never let anyone know they were violating the spirit of his license, at least as he read it. IANAL, so I make no comment on the license itself, but it was poor of him to let the OpenBSD people use ipf, "violating" his license, and become dependent on it, before he "clarified" the license.

People aren't as pissed about the licensing as the way it was done.

Theo makes the point...

[Ektanoor]

Theo notes there that "software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia."

What Theo does not show what BSD should be. It shows the very nature of software. And BSD recognizes this very nature as a principle of use. Unfortunately many people attempt to overcome a natural fact by putting licences and restrictions. Much like the "bridge taxes" that were so common on the Middle Ages. Taxes were not only made on bridges built by the owner, but also on ancient roman bridges, bridges built by the community or third parties. Frequently taxes rose to absurd levels, which lead to clashes and even small wars. Something very similar can be seen in todays software.
Meanwhile there is a danger that Theo might have got too far. First because Australia surely will further see OpenBSD as a national menace. Second because Theo seems to live in California and there seems to exist a very weird rule there that considers even sugestions of using atomics as a terrorist threat... So time for Bush to switch out his NMD plans in exchenge for the new BSD (Berckley Software Defense) program... Considering the fact that BSD is red and has a small devil playing around with a fork, it will be absolutely easy for the conservative minds at Washington to readapt to the new threat:

"The Reds are coming!"
"The Red Evil menace"
"It's the devil in cheap... o damn... sheep clothes. Anyway it's in cheap clothes also..."

FreeBSD and NetBSD Won't help OpenBSD out here...

[alexhmit01]

I use OpenBSD. It is my primary server system. however, OpenBSD is going to go this one alone. Unfortunately, Theo decided to open his mouth without checking out copyright law first. He declared that Reed didn't have that ability and that he would ignore it. That pissed Reed off.

The idiots on =deadly.org didn't help the situation. A bunch of whiny jerks got all obnoxious. Additionally, the mail bombing of personal attacks from slashdot/deadly was EXTREMELY counter productive.

This is a delicate situation where OpenBSD conceivably broke copyright law and sold CDs as a result.

Diplomacy was needed here, and all this reporting was counter productive. I love OpenBSD, but this was unfortunately Theo's doing. The version of IPFilter in OpenBSD was modified, and the author was never notified. While BSD and GPL licenses don't require notifying the author, common decency does. Unfortunately, an unspoken goal of OpenBSD is to have better software by keeping their changes kinda quiet. You could build a product off OpenBSD, but migrating OpenBSD's changes into FreeBSD is problematic. Given how much gets taken from FreeBSD, this is kinda obnoxious. Nobody really calls OpenBSD on this because it is a small userbase. We only run OpenBSD because the servers we run need very few applications, and the OS+Ports gives us that quickly without cruft. However, the political issues in OpenBSD are a little sad.

Net/Free will stay away from this pissing match with a 10-ft pole. They may hope for a Free (BSDL) filtering package to show up, but they won't get involved in Theo and Darren's pissing match. If OpenBSD gets one working (and likely will in the next 6 mo., OpenBSD's coders are as brilliant and competant as Theo is obnoxious...) FreeBSD and NetBSD may migrate to OpenIPF. However, until they have something done, there is no reason for them to back Theo.

Theo, good luck and happy coding. I wish you would pick up some diplomatic finesse, it would make your life easier. Either way, love the system and look forward to my OpenBSD 2.9 CD.

GPL==Vaccine, !=Virus

[abe ferlman]

I really wish more people saw the GPL as having the hampering effect that it does; let it truly be free; let the market forces and the open source cloners and innovators determine how the code evolves and branches. If someone uses it commercially, make them give credit, but don't make them give up their value-added code which they make their living with. If the changes are useful, someone will clone 'em! If they can't, then the company is really adding something special; don't restrict or disincent them from doing so by forcing them to give up the rights and privacy of their proprietary addition.

In a truly free market (i.e., without the temporary monopolies granted by "intellectual property"), the GPL would be redundant because everyone would already have all the freedoms you describe. The GPL isn't a virus, it's a vaccine. It keeps the intellectual property market from destroying itself. Salk could have taken a patent out on the polio vaccine, but he said that "would be like patenting the sun". We don't have many people with that much character these days.

Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom.

What a lovely little rhetorical flourish you add with the phrase "infectious". How is this different from laws which coercively restrict your freedom? The old dictum "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" applies here. The idea of enforced freedoms requires that a little liberty be given up so that more total liberty will be available for more people. The GPL is just an example of the democratic system at work.

Intellectual property law (rather than the GPL) is the root of the problem, creating artificial monopolies without achieving its stated purpose of fostering innovation. This is what clogs up the market, and the GPL is the most powerful weapon available to keep information and ideas available to the public rather than in the hands of faceless corporations.

Bryguy