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]

We decided not to support the import due to licensing issues

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).

about "licensing issues", Franco? All our code is under the same license today as the code you forked.

That's def. good for your *pfSense* code  :)

If there were "licensing issues" to pulling it in (which there aren't), then your entire code base would have same "issues."

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.

lying about "licensing issues"

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

[Supermule]

Open up these links in pairs, tabs next to each other:
1)
https://github.com/opnsense/core/commit/ad5065e04da2d375bdfdf987d1d52a5f4d76a5f0
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/72992b8533b8335b20fd70e9b11f38e9397ed70f

2)
https://github.com/opnsense/core/commit/ec89f5ec8629acdb
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/e4dcbe49cbd56164f79c886c297d00ec8c6740f2

3)
https://github.com/opnsense/core/commit/017672187a80caf
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/3ab15aaf2af20d50afbc310de8ec73667ff2bf59

What do you see? I'll steer you in the right direction: Timestamps (ABC authored X days ago) and the code changes. You don't need to understand the code, just compare it.

[franco]

That's perfectly in line with the licensing. We welcome and encourage them. :)

[Supermule]

I know Franco.

Some are trying to protect the name "pfsense" since thats all it is. A name. And a pissed of community.

Unlike here.

[franco]

Let's just keep it friendly please. Things will get better. :)

[Supermule]

We know :)

[franco]

Nevermind. Thanks. :)

[cmb]

My problem's well documented, Franco. Compete on something other than FUD and lies.

The "licensing issues" garbage is very simple, very black and white. Either all of OPNsense's code has "licensing issues", or you can continue to pull in code changes. There is no in between. Hint: it's the latter.

Here are two changes you should pull in, see my previous post.
https://github.com/pfsense/bsdinstaller/commit/a9cb05bfd831f76b0b87b7c3808759f238f80405
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/ed97bf788e77adace331d32112cb5665195d9b23

The license you claim is such a problem is OpenSSL's license, with s/OpenSSL/pfSense/. No one's starting OPNOpenSSL screaming from the rooftops because it's "not open."

I hate politics, and we all have much better things to do with our time. But if I'm forced to defend my company and project, I'll do so. I've never heard a peep from anyone claiming we were going closed source until you guys started putting out garbage, and now it's something I have to defend against routinely.

[jschellevis]

Hi Chris,

I do find it very unfortunate that it seems we have become adversaries as that is not what we want at all.

The fact is that we have forked the code from an earlier version and only a few files came from a binary distribution that you had put out with the same 2-clause BSD license. We have made a full list of all files and their origin just to defend our case if ever needed.

However there is no reason why we could not work together and leave all this behind.
I am more than willing to talk with you and work things out.

You have my Skype address.. just add it or send me PM if you forgot and we'll talk to get the sky clear again.

Jos

[chol]

Out of this:

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,

CMB makes:

Either all of OPNsense's code has "licensing issues", or you can continue to pull in code changes.

Seems to me like a misunderstanding!


In regard to fight for one's own company:

I hate politics, and we all have much better things to do with our time. But if I'm forced to defend my company and project, I'll do so.

... be it as it may, politics and all, but how will CMB defend against "Freedom Speech", exactly.
If I was to say the product 'CMBsense' or the distribution 'pfCMB' had-in my view- licensing issues, who on earth would "fight" that - even go on and threaten me?

I've never heard a peep from anyone claiming we were going closed source until you guys started putting out garbage, and now it's something I have to defend against routinely.

As CMB stated, "us guys" did not say so, either! The only garbage I can see here is the misconduct in use of language.

However, the historical record has some rather erratic and possible offending in nature licensing decisions made by ESF - and that is a fact.


IN CONCLUSION:
In light of this statement:

I do find it very unfortunate that it seems we have become adversaries as that is not what we want at all.
The fact is that we have forked the code from an earlier version and only a few files came from a binary distribution that you had put out with the same 2-clause BSD license. We have made a full list of all files and their origin just to defend our case if ever needed.

...the issue  seems to be a very personal problem of the pseudonym CMB.

[cyber7]

This is my first post after having a look at a home-release of a FW.  I must also specify that I am an active user on pfSense, bought the book, contributed to code and blogged extensively on pfSense, BUT...

I find the attitude and comments from the "cmb" user very destructive towards the pfSense label and name and in poor show!  It almost feels like the user is trolling on purpose.

That said, IF cmb is a troll, please delete his comments and the subsequent comments (post it rather to an archive if license issues needs to be discussed).  BUT, if this "cmb" user is the owner/coder/admin of pfSense, you, my dear sir, is busy destroying a good company and name by your posts and narrow-mindedness.

just my 10c
cyber7 (aka Aubrey Kloppers, Cape Town, South Africa)
aubreykloppers.wordpress.com