Netgate SG-1000 microFirewall

Author Topic: Tools Repo  (Read 17011 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jporter

  • pfSense/Netgate Operations
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • NSSLabs Devops
    • View Profile
    • Freeside
Tools Repo
« on: April 28, 2014, 04:31:33 pm »
You will first need to execute the ICA/CCA (pick one). If you already have an account on the portal, you can login with it or you will need to create a new account:

https://portal.pfsense.org/members/signup/ICLA   (if you're signing as an individual)
https://portal.pfsense.org/members/signup/CCLA  (if you're signing on behalf of a corporation)

and then execute the License Agreement:

https://portal.pfsense.org/members/signup/LA

there will a place to put your ssh public key in and, once the sync occurs, you will be able to access the tools repo.

More information about the agreements can be found here: https://www.pfsense.org/about-pfsense/index.html#legal

The git server pulls the keys from the portal system every 5 minutes, so once you have both agreements checked, and your key in you have access.

To build 2.1.X pfSense, use FreeBSD 8.3.
To build 2.2 pfSense use FreeBSD 10.1.

git clone git@github.com:pfsense/pfsense-tools.git
 
If there are other pointers suggestions you can add them here, and I'll update the post.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 12:51:02 am by cmb »
Jessica Porter

Offline zandr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +4/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2014, 10:45:16 pm »
The TLA link says "There are no products available for purchase. Please come back later." Could you provide a link so I can read the TLA before I start agreeing to things?

EDIT: Found the PDF here: https://www.pfsense.org/ESF_Trademark_License_Agreement_v1.1.pdf
« Last Edit: May 02, 2014, 10:59:02 pm by zandr »

Offline jdillard

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
  • Karma: +124/-1
  • Web Dude
    • View Profile
    • Personal Website
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2014, 02:11:01 pm »
When setting up the agreement process I had mistakenly called it a Trademark Agreement, when in fact it was not.

The agreement can be found here now: https://www.pfsense.org/ESF_License_Agreement_v1.0.pdf

Offline razzfazz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
  • Karma: +15/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2014, 02:46:57 pm »
If you plan to keep making revisions to this document, perhaps the clause in section 7e) that explicitly says "This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Parties" (i.e., both sides) should be removed? Either way, though, it seems that any changes you made compared to the "TLA" that folks signed already would only affect new signees from this point on, no?

Offline jdillard

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
  • Karma: +124/-1
  • Web Dude
    • View Profile
    • Personal Website
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2014, 03:17:05 pm »
it seems that any changes you made compared to the "TLA" that folks signed already would only affect new signees from this point on, no?

Correct. I also only made changes to the title and last modified date.

Offline razzfazz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
  • Karma: +15/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2014, 03:40:15 pm »
Another note: The required attribution text in section 3b) explicitly says "2014"; that is probably not what you really want folks to keep using moving forward, is it?

Offline Mat Simon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Karma: +9/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2014, 03:14:29 pm »
The tools repo is under a OpenSSL-like license which is OK to me, but now I have a doubt when it comes to patches to the base system or ports in the case of upstreaming.
(part of the stuff I am interested is going through patches and trying to figure out whether this as possibly of interested in upstream ~ less to care in pfSense)

As I understand the license it's OK for pfSense to take BSD code, integrate and modify with additional terms in this new license: BSD -> pfSense-tools License works.

However I'm twisting my head around this new license when it comes to upstreaming things to a BSD-licensed project such as the base FreeBSD.
In my understanding I'd have to punch a patch for Freebsd in shape and then I'd have to offer it under the OpenSSL-derived license, not BSD)

I'm asking mainly since I really don't want to stand on anyone toe and to properly understand the intentions of this new license.



Offline Grub3

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +13/-53
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2014, 02:15:41 am »
https://portal.pfsense.org/members/signup/ICLA 
is unacceptable, as it transfers copyright free developer work to a company without compensation.

This assignment also suggest that pfSense codebase (not pfSense brand) is the ownership of all developers and this is an interesting information, thank you.

As a member of the future developer alliance incorporated under a foundation, we don't recommend signing this agreement.
Please read pfSense Internet neutrality and FreeBSD licence post.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 02:22:36 am by Grub3 »

Offline Mat Simon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Karma: +9/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2014, 03:37:00 am »
@Grub3: I remember GOOSE as Smartcard vendor, props for that.
However: Although the effective difference is little, there is a difference in legal terms on what you write and what the CLA says:
  • The CLA doesn't mention copyright ownership, you give them a license to do almost whatever they whish with your code i.e. sublicense etc (you don't give them warranties).
  • There is a difference between and extensive license that you grant ESF and copyright transfer (the later isn't even possible in some countries ie. most EU countries).

If you contribute to Apache projects you have to sign a their CLA (http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt), beyond s/ESF/Apache Foundation/g is the same as the CLA of pfSense.
Agreed difference: Apache is US-based non-profit 501(c)(3) while ESF is a (for-profit) LLC. 2 widely known OSS projects have a very similar CLA with the entity being a company: Android and Chromium. Another that I know about is Joyent SmartOS.

In comparison Sun (RIP): On a lot of their projects they insisted on copyright assignment which is what allowed Oracle to close back previously open projects without much acknowleding external contributors (think Solaris).  I'm definitely not pro-CLA and extensive licensing to an entity (Linux and illumos explicitely share copyrights), but I don't see ESF isn't reinventing the wheel and doing necessarily more evil than others that have CLAs too.

If you aren't OK with the CLA, don't sign it, if you feel to fork, do so by respecting of the terms under which you received the code.

gonzopancho

  • Guest
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2014, 04:28:20 am »
https://portal.pfsense.org/members/signup/ICLA 
is unacceptable, as it transfers copyright free developer work to a company without compensation.

No, it does not.


Offline Grub3

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +13/-53
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2014, 11:13:36 am »
Here are the facts:

https://www.pfsense.org/ESF_Individual_Contributor_License_Agreement_v1.0.pdf

Quote
2.
Grant of Copyright License
.Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to ESF and to recipients of the Work a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and derivative works thereto, including but not limited to combination(s) of Your Contributions with the Work

Your company is asking individual contributor to grant ownership of their code to your company, without compensation other than access to their source code.

pfSense licence agreement is available here:
https://www.pfsense.org/ESF_License_Agreement_v1.0.pdf

Quote
Copyright © 2014. Electric Sheep Fencing LLC. The pfSense®
software is offered under license from Electric Sheep Fencing LLC
(“ESF”)


The ESF licence is a very restrictive licence, including a copyright where your company owns everything and people only have the right to ask for permission.
i.e. there is no freedom to modify the source code, i.e. no copyleft. The problem is that all community is about copyleft, so are killing the community and destroying the project.

You are simply REBRANDING THE WORK OF THE COMMUNITY, putting an Electric Sheep Fencing STICKER on it to pretend it is YOURS.

We would prefer:

Quote
Copyright © 2014. Electric Sheep Fencing LLC. The pfSense®
software is offered under the FreeBSD licence without any limitation.

The difference is that the FreeBSD offers copyleft and the ESF does not.
The FreeBSD would still allow you to make commercial works from pfsense source code.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 11:22:16 am by Grub3 »

Offline Grub3

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +13/-53
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2014, 11:24:16 am »
To make a comparision, this repo is like "offering free keys" to a house owner, prevented that "the owner grants you ownership of the house".

Offline cmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11230
  • Karma: +893/-7
    • View Profile
    • Chris Buechler
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2014, 08:49:10 pm »
License != ownership. EVERY open source project in proper legal standing does exactly the same as what we're doing. Apache? Yep. Linux? Yep. FreeBSD? Well they will be soon, possibly using our exact CLA.

Nothing about prohibiting modifications is in any way remotely true. You just can't modify it and put our brand on it. You can't do that to any other trademarked open source project either.

grub3's other ignorance addressed in other threads since he's been busy spreading bullshit all over the place.

Offline Mat Simon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Karma: +9/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2014, 02:45:35 am »
@cmb: Can you share a clarification on the patches applied to ports and the base system as I mentioned?

It's really just a matter of "I'd like to understand things correctly". I guess that the less patches pfSense has to mangle (8.3 had quite some backports too), the quicker pfSense can stay in sync - and it seems as of currently 2.2 seems to be very closely tracking 10-STABLE.

A couple of patches miss some comments - without that it's pretty difficult if you are not closely related to the code or the author of said patches. ;-)

Offline cmb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11230
  • Karma: +893/-7
    • View Profile
    • Chris Buechler
Re: Tools Repo
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2014, 03:05:02 am »
There's no issue in including BSD licensed code (and we'll release it as same as it goes upstream and stays closer to the most recent). Things in that regard haven't changed at all. BSD and similar licenses are fine to include. GPL and other more restrictive licenses cannot be, same as before.

Thanks Mathieu, appreciate all your contributions. Sorry your question got lost in the noise from the trolls and/or tinfoil hat crowd.