> They took much more than they have given (which the source code licence allows them to do, even if it's morally wrong).

I don't want to start a flame war, but if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?

That is - how can you complain when the license explicitly allows for this? If you (not you personally, of course - but the OpenBSD project) didn't want this to happen, then the license would need to be changed to prevent it.

Of course then, companies wouldn't be as willing to use the code, as we tend to see with the GPL.

But if companies are just going to take the code, modify it, and not contribute the changes back (or contribute little back), where's the loss by using another license?

If the loss is "but the code then won't be used in the greater ecosystem", why complain when it is?

Again - I'm not trying to cause a flame war; everybody has their license and needs. I'm just trying to understand why there is complaints when code isn't contributed back under the BSD license, when it explicitly allows for this.

Furthermore, I am wondering if there is anything we can do about it, that doesn't cause the kind of ire to rise when the GPL is invoked instead. Perhaps there isn't a solution, but I'd love to hear ideas on the subject.

There is a difference between forcing what you believe to be right onto others via legal means, and wanting people to do the right thing because it is moral to do so.

The GPL exists because Stallman knew that corporations seldom do the right thing if not required so by law.

And like the DRM he detests so much, he hurts the "good guys" more than the "bad guys".

Plenty of companies simply avoid the gpl because it complicates things, and stick to more permissive licenses for their open source efforts.

Plenty more just do what the fuck they want regardless of what the gpl says.

And yet there are many thriving GPL projects, running on billions of devices worldwide, from routers to servers. GPL has created an environment where Netgear and Linksys collaborate on developing the same pieces of software, not due to morals, but due to it being the best option for themselves. Same with IBM and many other companies working on GPL sofware.

> not due to morals, but due to it being the best option for themselves

Indeed, and this is why the same thing happens in the BSD world. There are many examples of large and small companies, competitors, working on the same parts of FreeBSD.

Enlightened companies contribute to Free and Open Source software because it's in their best interest, not directly because of the license. Conversely, there are countless examples of companies who don't think it's in their interest, and willfully violate the GPL.

I think the contributions under discussion here are monetary, not code, so the GPL doesn't have much to do with this. pfSense is open source, so the code is available.

Personally I find antagonizing non-contributing users more morally objectionable than the non-contribution.

Of course I'm speaking generally, I don't know the backstory here so there might be some other things causing the bad blood. But I would prefer we as a community would not attack people/companies just for not contributing.

pfsense has a long history of antagonizing their openbsd/freebsd upstreams.

I don't think there is any support for me being antagonistic toward FreeBSD.

I've addressed openbsd elsewhere in this stream.

Without offering an opinion about their behavior I want to point out that a compliance with a license or laws has nothing to do with morals or ethics.

> I don't want to start a flame war, but if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?

I can legally walk down the street cursing at everyone I meet. I can try to learn things about people, and then use that to make them feel terrible. I can start a business that intentionally preys on people in bad situations in ways that will make them worse off.

I'm allowed to do all that. I believe doing any of them are varying degrees of morally wrong.

One should never confuse law and morality. They are not the same, and what's worse than confusing them is trying to make them the same.

> if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?

Because even if I buy you a 'free beer', I can still think you're a jerk if you throw it back in my face.

I think a more apt analogy would be if you buy me a "free beer" and I drink it, then you're upset because I didn't buy you a "free beer" in exchange. If the beer wasn't meant to be free, then don't license it as "free beer".

The specific claim was not that pfSense merely used the technology, but also that they were hostile to a variety of community projects, including OpenBSD itself.

If I buy you a free beer, you are not obliged to say 'Thank you'.

Choosing not to do so may still shine a light on your character.

> ... a "free beer" ...

As in "one beer"? More like the mythical free beer river.

Anyway, your point still stand. It may not be a "moral thing to do", yet one could appreciate others not to pee in the mythical free beer river.

> I don't want to start a flame war, but if the BSD license allows for them to do this, why is it morally wrong?

Because laws and moral codes differ. As an absurd example, it is legal (in most countries?) to cheat on your spouse, but it's not considered morally okay (otherwise it wouldn't be called "cheating").

Morality is much more than the law.

I've also reversed my stance on openbsd, and personally apologized to Henning.

But none of that is public before now.

Glad to hear it! I hope to see some more comradery between the two projects going forward.

I second that, and hope that you might find a way to build pfSense on the most recent pf. (I know, if I want that, shut up and hack.)

the most direct path would be to get the OpenBSD pf into FreeBSD, but including all the performance work that has been done.

Behavior is one thing, but what is so wrong about "taking" more than "giving"? Isn't the development of a firewall distribution, and the provision of professional services around it, a good service in itself?

Kind of like Greg Hartman fussing about Canonical not doing kernel contributions, as if that's the sole metric for being a Linux distro.

I've edited my post, will remove it if you think it does more harm to highlight their actions than good.

Please don't remove your post. Pointing out these issues is very important, and making one donation should not indemnify people who behave in this way.

Isn't being able to take more than I give the entire point of the bsd license?

Not necessarily a question for just you, but what have they done, exactly?