Re: alternatives to m0n0

Hallo

On 18/02/15 15:31, Klaus Stock wrote:
>> This means that I can not trust Chris (who I still consider a very
>> good guy) to keep pfSense trustworthy.  So pfSense is off the table.
>> Reading this repeatedly, I'll probably not consider pfSense as a
>> favourite either 
> as I perceive it, the "political turmoil" around pfSense has little to 
> do with the trustworthiness pfSense software. While I dislike the idea 
> that it has become harder to build pfSense yourself, I understand that 
> were reasons for that step. As I saw it, some of the guys behind the 
> pfSense project perceived a legal threat against them and they had to 
> take actions.

Thanks for clarifying!

>> Would it be even possible not to fork? The basis being the relatively
>> liberal FreeBSD licence would perhaps make it easier to just continue,
>> which might be advantageous in many respects ...
> You can, for example, fork pfSense. You just may not call your fork 
> pfSense.

I was thinking of *possibly* keeping m0n0wall as a project and also
keeping the same name, i. e. not forking in the sense of
"creating/continuing two projects". Sort of: the project owner and head
developer steps down, another one (or several people) take over.

That of course is unusual and would require the agreement of the
previous owner plus probably a lot of trust so as not to risk m0n0wall
going down the drain.

Best, Bob