On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Mathieu Simon (Lists) <matsimon.li...@simweb.ch> wrote:
> > > Am 13.02.2014 17:54, schrieb Andrew Hull: >> [...] I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was >> customized with Netgate branding and the firmware auto-update mechanism >> was set to a Netgate URL. >> >> Has this been discussed on the list before? > I don't think often for what I can remember. >> >> My knee jerk reaction is that this is A Bad Thing(tm), and I reloaded >> the devices with images from ESF. Does anyone here have a strong opinion >> one way or the other? > > No worries, that's how open source works, and in case of the BSD license > there are are almost all liberties to do derivative products, as long as > you follow minimal rules and trademark (pfSense and the logo are > trademarks of ESF). Netgate allows you to run what image you like, other > (non pfSense) appliance vendors are way less nice :-) > > Common guess: Beyond branding, their images may contain pre-done tuning > for the hardware that makes it perform at its best without extra user > intervention. In comparison, at one place I have a 3-letter brand server > running pfSense and I had to spend some time on loader.conf.local and > tunings to make all NICs work and work good (props to ESF staff who > assisted). > > Quick history: > BSD Perimeter moved from Kentucky (in 2012) to Texas and reinstated as > ESF. Jim Thompson from Netgate (also Texas) got involved with ESF, he is > actually active in both companies. In mid-2012, Chris approached several parties, including the principals of Netgate to investigate their interest in purchasing the interest in BSD Perimeter formerly held by Scott Ulrich. In August 2012, the principals of Netgate completed the purchase of those shares. Subsequently, Chris moved to Texas (his idea, not forced on him in any way). (To be perfectly clear on the history, Netgate was, quite literally, the first support customer of BSD Perimeter, back in 2006, and has continuously supported the project from that day until now.) > That may explain why Netgate is permitted to redistribute modifed images > without the need to rename the resulting product binaries or replacing > the logos. (Jim, correct me I'm writing this out of my memory, I > remember there was once a post or a mailing list discussion) Given that I’m managing both companies, some things get ‘shared’ (Netgate and ESF run on a common set of infrastructure (switches, servers, etc) though in some cases, the usage is exclusively ESF (e.g. the co-location at NYI.) Those of us in Austin (and there is more headcount under ESF than you might imagine) are all collocated in the same office space. That all said: 1) I really do try to keep Netgate and ESF ‘separate’ in terms of business. 2) Co-branding is permitted, and even encouraged, if done under the auspices of the ESF program directed to same. There is revenue attached that flows to ESF, and thus, directly supports the project. These releases are built on the same (identical) infrastructure, from the same tree, by ESF personnel. Jim _______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
