pfSense Gold Subscription

Author Topic: A hardy "Welcome!" to OPNsense!  (Read 5743 times)

bmeeks and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cino

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
  • Karma: +43/-2
    • View Profile
Re: A hardy "Welcome!" to OPNsense!
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2015, 08:07:10 am »
@montaro I couldn't agree anymore 

Offline Derelict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2796
  • Karma: +314/-9
    • View Profile
Re: A hardy "Welcome!" to OPNsense!
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2015, 10:58:55 pm »
Quote
If you make changes to pfSense, the resulting product CANNOT be called pfSense or anything similar. You can call the result any name you like so long as it is distinct from pfSense. As in earlier points, you can state that it's based on pfSense, forked from pfSense, and so on. Stating facts is fine, but creating an association in the product name is not. This is also necessary to protect the trademark.

    Examples:
        "pfSomething", or "somethingSense" -- NOT OK
        "ExampleWall", "FireWidget" -- OK
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_sell_pfSense

*cough* OPNsense *cough*

IANAL but if I was on a jury I would be inclined to consider you defending "sense" a stronger position than "pf".  tcpSense, ipSense, fwSense, etc vs. pfWall, pfEase, pfBarrier, pfPerimiter (?!?) etc.  pf existed before the project.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 11:09:11 pm by Derelict »

gonzopancho

  • Guest
Re: A hardy "Welcome!" to OPNsense!
« Reply #62 on: February 21, 2015, 05:35:39 pm »
IANAL but if I was on a jury I would be inclined to consider you defending "sense" a stronger position than "pf".  tcpSense, ipSense, fwSense, etc vs. pfWall, pfEase, pfBarrier, pfPerimiter (?!?) etc.  pf existed before the project.

You're not a lawyer, but we have IP lawyers (who specialize in trademark) on retainer.


Offline kapara

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 542
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A hardy "Welcome!" to OPNsense!
« Reply #63 on: Today at 04:41:56 pm »
I would agree that changing the license without warning would cause some alarm.  If it is just that you must use the name pfSense then that is not too troubling to me.  I think the real concern is whether or not the long term goals of where pfSense is going is of more importance.  Many times I have used open source products and to depend on the product and then the company switches gears and offers a stripped down community version and a paid version which has all the features.

I have not read anything leading me to believe this but I also have not read anything contrary to this.  I think having another option is good as I really don't see it as being harmful to the pfSense project unless the goal for Netgate is to lock it down and force users to pay for the product.  I am not expecting Netgate to disclose what their future plans are for pfSense but not knowing does create a cause of concern for some.

I have been using pfSense for many years and will continue to do so until given a reason not to like limiting the functionality, charging for the software, or forcing me to use Netgate branded hardware only.

Skype ID:  Marinhd