Adam,
(Three people rushed to my office, saying, “Here we go again!”)
There is a metaphor I like to use to explain the situation, it is roughly this:
Can you buy a bottle of Coca-Cola, and then sell or give it to someone
else?
Yes you can. Without getting too deep into the legalities, you have
certain rights in the first sale.
Can you buy a bottle of Coca-Cola, open it, change the contents
(anything here from adding salt,
or distilled water, to adding battery acid), recap the bottle and offer
someone the result as “a bottle of Coke”?
No you can not, and nearly everyone understands ‘Why not”.
Similarity: Can you distribute the pfSense software that you received from us,
*as you received it from us*? Yes you can.
Can you put the pfSense software you received from us, and, without altering
it, put it on the hardware platform of your choosing, and sell the result?
Yes, but here trademark comes into play. You can sell the result as, e.g.
“My firewall with pfSense software.” You can’t sell it as a “pfSense
firewall”.
The first (“with pfSense software”) states a fact. The second uses the mark
without a license.
We ask that people using the mark in a fact adhere to several ‘rules’ in order
to help us preserve the mark.
First, that the mark is only ever used with genuine pfSense software.
Any change to the software means that the “genuine” requirement is
violated.
Second, that “pfSense” should always be used as an adjective, never as a noun.
Example of allowed use as adjective: “… with pfSense software”
Examples of disallowed use as noun: “… with pfSense”, “powered by
pfSense”.
Third, we ask that in any country where the pfSense mark is registered, that
the “circle R” mark be appended to the first use in any view (web page,
marketing collateral, etc.)
“my firewall with pfSense® software”
A *current* list of countries where the mark is registered follows: United
States of America, its territories and possessions, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, (every country in the) European Community, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico,
New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey,
Ukraine, and Vietnam
Others are pending, but not yet issued.
Fourth, we ask that attribution occur at the bottom of the ‘page’ in any use of
the registered mark. Our suggested language is:
"pfSense® is a registered trademark of Electrical Sheep Fencing LLC.”
My purpose in all of the above is to engage the community in helping preserve
the trademarks. (The registration in IC9 protects the use of the mark on
hardware, software and similar. The registration in IC42 protects the use of
the mark when used with services including support. Looking at the above,
“pfSense support” isn’t allowed (other than for ESF and its licensees), but
“support for pfSense® software” is.)
To address your point, "But, at least here, I'm quite sure I can install
pfSense on some random hardware and still call it pfSense.”
True, but you can’t call the solution “pfSense”, see above.
I’m with you in the opinion that fully-supported high-throughput (or even
“high-value”) solutions are best for the market.
Jim
> On Oct 23, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Adam Thompson <athom...@athompso.net> wrote:
>
> One nit: yes, I can sell something called "pfSense", as that's the
> freely-downloadable software under a (IIRC) BSD license.
> I can't sell something called "NetGate".
> I can't produce a derivative work and call it pfSense. (This is a gray area,
> admittedly.)
> But, at least here, I'm quite sure I can install pfSense on some random
> hardware and still call it pfSense.
>
> Having said that, if there's a high-throughput hardware option that's fully
> supported and tested and optimized, I don't know why I would *sell* anything
> else.
> I'll continue to install pfSense in VMs and on existing repurposed hardware,
> but that's an entirely different market segment anyway, and all I'm selling
> is my time.
>
> -Adam
>
> On October 23, 2014 11:06:42 AM CDT, Jim Thompson <j...@netgate.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Zia Nayamuth <zedestruc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lots of suggestions on the hardware, but I see nobody mention anything based
> around the new and much more powerful Avoton platform. The platform is
> officially supported, and the pfSense store has hardware based on it (looks
> to be the Supermicro 5018A-FTN4,
>
> It is. The FW-7551 runs a two core version of the same SoC.
>
> The SoC in both is based on Rangeley, which is like Avoton, but more
> Ethernets and a crypto core named "QuickAssist".
>
> We have a line of similar hardware coming out early next year. You can see
> the beginnings of same on the Netgate site. Don't stress about the dev board
> pricing, it's far higher than production boards / systems will be.
>
> This will be the hardware that
> pfSense is tested on, and released for. Other platforms will continue to
> work, but if you want to run the solution that the pfSense team uses,
> develops for, and tests on, look in the store.
>
>
> Before someone accuses (because this always comes up), we don't cripple other
> solutions (witness the AES-NI acceleration available to all in pfSense
> version 2.2), but we do polish things we sell. When we decided to sell the
> C2758 (5018A-FTN4), we made sure all the Ethernets worked (this was released
> in 2.1.1) and did some tuning such that the platform worked well using
> pfSense 2.1.x.
>
> We don't release the tuning info, and, incredibly, a couple people a month
> write in demanding it.
>
> Anyway, the point is, the community is still free to run pfSense software on
> a given platform, but, as was always true, YMMV with platforms we don't
> support.
>
> Someone asked in the blog if we would be enabling the crypto part on the
> Watchguard he had purchased on eBay.
>
> The answer is no. Not only because the hardware is slower than a
> software-only solution on a modern cpu, but also because SafeNet (the company
> that made that part) no longer supports them, nor is the technical
> documentation available.
>
> And then there is the main reason: We don't have infinite time and other
> resources.
>
> Also, while the end user can change things to enable or even optimize a given
> platform choice, load additional packages, etc., nobody can distribute the
> result and call it "pfSense". Simple trademark law demands same.
>
> Anyway, the point is, things we don't sell aren't on developers desks, and
> are not in the test rack, and thus, not exercised by the test harness.
>
> Jim
>
>
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
