Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:54:54 -0700 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer Message-ID: <201304181354.r3IDssVp005515@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> of "Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:02:40 -0400." <CAPyFy2BaoF-7t-skTUPt97hkRgdjO-KbB2-vhjOus-nutNO5Fw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <CAPyFy2BaoF-7t-skTUPt97hkRgdjO-KbB2-vhjOus-nutNO5Fw@mail.gmail.c om> , Ed Maste writes: > On 15 April 2013 16:12, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> wrote: > > The existing license isn't that BSD-friendly either, which is why it lives > > in contrib/. I think the 5.1.X GPLv2 is about the same friendliness as > > Darren's IPF 4.1.X license. As long as it's not in GENERIC should be fine. > > A person can always load it anyway. > > There's a plan[1] to remove the remaining GPL components from base > over time. Updating to the last ipfilter that's under the current > license is probably the path forward, unless it moves out to ports. > > [1] https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase That's been pointed out to me. IPF's build/install scripts place header files in /usr/include, IMO unacceptable for a port. Going forward we go to 4.1.34 (still under the old license) then look at options. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201304181354.r3IDssVp005515>