Archive > 15.1 Legacy Series
Transition from PFSense 2.2.2
va176thunderbolt:
I'd like to do some testing, ideally importing my PFSense 2.2.2 backup. Is it possible, or am I going to have to manually configure everything?
franco:
Import from 2.1.5 works like a charm, but constant changes in the config.xml format since then leading up to 2.2.2 prevents a fully functional import. We decided not to support the import due to licensing issues, not wanting to import newer code and not wanting to appear needy. We don't aim to be a drop-in replacement as features and philosophies diverge.
You can try to manually change your config.xml version to "10.1" with a text editor and import the config. Some things in the IPSec domain may work differently and your packages will be gone, but that's about it.
Let us know if this works for you. :)
cmb:
--- Quote from: franco on June 05, 2015, 09:36:13 am ---We decided not to support the import due to licensing issues
--- End quote ---
Are you ever going to stop lying about "licensing issues", Franco? All our code is under the same license today as the code you forked. If there were "licensing issues" to pulling it in (which there aren't), then your entire code base would have same "issues."
chol:
*Keep Calm and let's enhance security together!*
CMB (like Chris M. Buechler?), if you feel the need to explain your motives and project aims further, or to drew on facts that might seem to be vulnerable for misinterpretation, please give us your insights!!
Your insights are highly valued here, I promise.
Why? Because it is a fork based relationship only, with mutual interests and probably competing goals divided by a huge ocean (EU vs US).
There should be ways to cooperate more friendly.
Dear CMB, please take into account, that OPNsense and pfSense share the same cultural and ethical background, what would probably differ horrendously, if the -lets say- North-Koreans, or IS would take the step to fork your highly valued pfSense code (or ours).
--- Quote from: cmb on June 14, 2015, 12:43:36 pm --- about "licensing issues", Franco? All our code is under the same license today as the code you forked.
--- End quote ---
That's def. good for your *pfSense* code :)
--- Quote from: cmb on June 14, 2015, 12:43:36 pm --- If there were "licensing issues" to pulling it in (which there aren't), then your entire code base would have same "issues."
--- End quote ---
The OPNsense project entirely runs under a different license than the ESF-license for pfSense. It is shorter and clearer, one does not need a lawyer to explain it, classical.
--- Quote from: cmb on June 14, 2015, 12:43:36 pm --- lying about "licensing issues"
--- End quote ---
As a matter of fact there is no lie involved in Francos message!
In my understanding, in comparison to the simple 2-clause OPNsense license, dealing with the ESF-license, inheriting 7 main terms and many sub-terms and sub-conditions more, in general bears issues for us (not four you). Franco surely alluded to that fact!
The "ESF License Agreement, v1" has these terms and conditions, as anyone can see:
*1a - f (6)
*2a - b (2)
*3a - g (7)
*4 (1)
*5 (1)
*6a - b (2)
*7a - e (5)
-----------------
total (24), I am sure professional lawyers would find many (implicit) more ...
Many of us here are pfSensae users, bought your books, used pfSense for years, recommended it for buisinesses and private use cases and promoted it as a fine example of software out of the BSD realm...
Our intent here is not to lie about you, CMB, or *your* pfSense nor your code nor your license.
In a word we like you and your project - as an offspring of yours - only we confident and happy stroll a different path, now... :)
See also:
* pfSense - Yes, everyone who wasn't an actual ESF employee got locked out of '-tools'.
franco:
To keep this open and productive, what *is* your issue with OPNsense, Chris? And I don't mean the way you dislike our communication. In early 2014 the license was expanded and the tools.git went away. This isn't our fault. It happened 8 months before OPNsense started. We made a decision to fork based on these particular actions. This is our story. Trying to tell everyone we are "lying" and "not doing anything of worth except a GUI" on top is getting really old. When you have a pretty GUI, people will start looking past that. What are you going to explain away then? pkgng support, MVC, API, mostly weekly updates -- some of the things we've done for OPNsense. We're proud of this work.
Now, if we are so dismissible, dispensable and unsustainable as you happen to have said on other occasions, why are we still here? Why do we matter in your view? Why do you come here to defend your actions that reach back well over a year and we've had no direct influence on? Are you even trying to defend your actions regarding the pfSense transition of early 2014? You really don't have to defend them. And if you are not trying to defend them, why do you detest others for acting on them? Or did you not like the transition, which is, unfortunate, but still no reasonable source for letting us know that you disagree with OPNsense. I think that's only natural.
What were we supposed to do with all the work we wanted to do, with all the work we have done and still want to do? In retrospect, what would you have done with 8 months of work amounting to over 2800 commits today? Would you have liked pfSense to have benefitted from the work that now went into OPNsense?
An easy way out of the dilemma would be to delete this file. I'll never speak of licensing issues again if that happens:
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/blob/master/license.txt
Cheers,
Franco
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version