[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Chris Liljenstolpe <cdl at asgaard dot org>
 To:  Jim Thompson <jim at netgate dot com>
 Cc:  krt <kkrrtt at gmail dot com>, m0n0wall <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] 6Wind 6WindGate
 Date:  Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:42:03 +0800
Greetings,

	I agree, they should acknowledge m0n0wall for (probably) lifting the 
php config stuff, but since they are running on a different OS, and have 
made a number of changes, it doesn't look like a simple copy.

	The two things on there that I see and like (mainly because I am doing 
them "on the side" on my pfsense and m0n0wall boxes are:

dynamic interfaces (GRE in my case)
BGPd

	Chris


Jim Thompson wrote:
> well, they didn't list it in their license page: 
> http://www.6wind.com/PDF/prod/web-management/license.html
> 
> I think its best to a) notify the company and b) get busy adding IPv6 
> support to m0n0wall (and/or pfSense).   6wind runs over the
> top of MontaVista Linux, not FreeBSD, and we all know how *wrong* that 
> decision can be.
> 
> We the coming release of pfSense on ixp42x-based systems, 
> m0n0wall/pfSense may start to look at lot more attractive for embedded 
> routers.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:29 AM, krt wrote:
> 
>>
>> If this is really not just a common underlying php framework issue,
>> it might be best to avoid any negative publicity.  In any event, has 
>> anyone verified the interface beyond the appearance?
>>
>> Assuming that this is a license violation, I'm willing to bet that the 
>> 6Wind company would donate some gear, hosting under contract, and/or 
>> money to the m0n0wall project in exchange for a special non-disclosure 
>> license.  The m0n0wall project would receive resources.  The company 
>> would save face before their customers and support the software 
>> pipeline that a critical portion of their product, and therefore 
>> business, is based off of.
>>
>> While 6Wind needs to tow the line, there may be few reasons to 
>> negatively affect both parties when both can benefit from this situation.
>>
>>
>> Lee Sharp wrote:
>>> Timothy Taylor wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was rather surprised to discover a firewall that has an astonishingly
>>>> similar interface to m0n0wall
>>>> <http://www.6wind.com/PDF/prod/web-management/license.html> but without
>>>> any credit to Manuel et al. Should I be disturbed or surprised? I
>>>> haven't actually used the product, I just came across the pages 
>>>> during a
>>>> Google search on "snmp firewall rule".
>>> Flagrant license violation.  From the m0n0wall license page;
>>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions 
>>> are met:
>>> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
>>> notice,
>>> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>> They are in clear violation of #2.  Manuel has them by the balls.  I 
>>> think he can get damages, and force them to notify all customers. :)
>>>             Lee
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> 
>