next »

[ajs]

original question removed
The definitive answer is here.
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_sell_pfSense

[ajs]

Thanks for your reply.

"Neither the name of pfSense nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."

I see where you got that. Since I am not looking to modify or build upon pfSense, I wonder if it would be ok to leave it as-is, logo and name intact. Really, I would be making users more aware of the existence of the project, which I would think would be a good thing.

But on the other hand, people may get the wrong idea that I am an official representative or developer or something.

I see both sides, and will take your advice and wait for a core team member to give the final word or more clarification.

Thanks,

[Cry Havok]

If you're selling a product based on pfSense then it is "derived from this software".

[cmb]

see http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_sell_pfSense

[Supermule]

Very good

[XIII]

@CMB or other moderator


the link should be stickied, there are a few questions all over the forum asking the same question.

[ajs]

Thanks for all the replies! I agree with the idea that this should be stickied.

So, if I read cmb's link correctly, it sounds like I can load pfsense as-is on some hardware, and sell it for whatever price I want. The existing copyright info complies with the license.

If this is not correct, please explain.

If I am successful in this, my plan is to donate a large portion (minus my costs) back to the project.

Thanks a lot,
ajs

[cmb]

Thanks for all the replies! I agree with the idea that this should be stickied.

So, if I read cmb's link correctly, it sounds like I can load pfsense as-is on some hardware, and sell it for whatever price I want. The existing copyright info complies with the license.

If this is not correct, please explain.

That's correct.

If I am successful in this, my plan is to donate a large portion (minus my costs) back to the project.

That's what we hope for.    I wish it worked out that way more often than it does, but we do have several companies as major contributors, and many smaller ones with donations here and there as well.

[XIII]

the link is pfsense.org/donate.html

[jimp]

I fixed the link on that wiki page. Thanks for the heads-up.

[ajs]

Fantastic! Thank you for all the replies and especially to cmb for giving the final word. Hopefully I will be successful in doing this, and be able to donate a decent amount back to you.

Keep up the outstanding work.

[mattg889]

Hi, Sorry to repeat the same question again, but I as far as I can tell I don't think this thread ever ended with a definitive answer.  And I would like to do a similar project as I also have some old computer's I'd like to sell as routers just for my time and the hardware.  And I have been using pfsense for years now and its worked great so I would like to install it on these routers.

The license agreement states:
"Neither the name of pfSense nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
Jimp stated:
"Saying they have pfSense loaded on them is probably OK (but I'd wait for a reply from a core team member to be sure)"
ajs stated:
"So, if I read cmb's link correctly, it sounds like I can load pfsense as-is on some hardware"

Is it OK to simply state that they have pfsense installed and pre-configured? (how would I contact a "core team member"?)
Is it still considered as-is if I simply configure it with the available options?

Thanks much,
Matt

[cmb]

The definitive answer is here.
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_sell_pfSense

The third clause of the 3 clause BSD license is a source of confusion though, the "Neither the name of pfSense nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."

After discussion we've removed the third clause and switched the project to a standard 2 clause BSD license (which is actually what was in the source already, the website has been changed).

So removing that should clear up all the remaining confusion.

[david@indesignlondon.co.u]

Thanks for that CMB, perfectly clear now.