Matthew, I think perhaps you should take a break and rethink how old you are. First, calling me a "mindless troll" is totally infantile. You have your opinions and I have mine, just because you don't agree with my opinions doesn't make either one of us wrong, we just have different opinions. And NO I don't believe everything I read, I spent three years as a US Army Military Policeman and I KNOW there are always two sides to every story. I NEVER stated that Smoothwall didn't acknowledge the GPL, their beef with IPCop is that the developers at IPCop removed their authorship for certain parts of the code. If I had been one of those developers, I would have been irritated too. Second, claiming that I have "logic errors" just because my logic doesn't match your logic is also very infantile. This is a forum to exchange and discuss ideas and Linux in general. Insulting people just because you don't agree with their point of view will only serve to alienate the others on the list. I insulted NO ONE on this list in any of my emails (at least that I can remember, if I did, I apologize). I have presented the facts as I understand them and my opinions. I did NOT try to impose my opinions on anyone else, if anyone felt that I was imposing my opinions, I again apologize. Grow up or shut up. Sincerely, Todd Young -- > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 08:31:46AM -0500, Todd Young wrote: > > > FACT: > > 1) Contrary to rumor, there is no "backdoor" to Smoothwall. > > That's correct, I did not say there current is, I said there was. > > > 2) In March of 2002 Richard Morrell of Smoothwall accused IPCop of > > violating the GPL with respect to Smoothwall's v0.9.9 distro. > > I'm hereby accusing you of being a mindless troll. It must be true, > because I said so. The world is also flat. > > > MY OPINION: > > I believe Richard Morrell. He would not have gone public with his > > accusation if he did not believe it. Since that time, IPCop may have > > mended their ways, I really don't know. BUT, I view their original > > actions as distasteful and therefore I will NOT support their > > distribution, nor will I recommend it to anyone I know. > > My god, I find it so distasteful that the Smoothwall people would take > GPL products (such as the linux kernel, squid, apache, *) and package > it into a product and call it their own! > > They got it for *FREE*, that means they have to give it back to the > community for *FREE*. It's not fair to get it for free, then say 'nope, > even though we got it for free, it's ours NOW, and you can't do anything > with it'. > > The IPCop people felt they could improve on a *FREE* product, this conflicted > with Smoothwall's business interests (to release a 'free' version that's > stripped down, and charge for the good things) so they chose to release > their own version that they were free to hack away on and add things to > without the artificial restraints of a persons business interests. > > This is how the GPL is meant to work, don't like it? Stop using it. > > > ANOTHER THOUGHT: > > Support contracts, for open source applications and operating systems, > > is what will drive open source into the business environment. This can > > be shown to be true by RedHat and SUSE's success. > > The difference is that they both contribute back to the community, and > RedHat's free version is exactly the same as the version they sell. The > version they sell simply comes with a support contract. > > > Let's all just agree to disagree. > > Having problems defending your logic errors? You started this thread. > > -- > Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified > http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list