Craig White wrote: > On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 13:07 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > >>On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 07:10 -0700, Craig White wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 21:32 -0500, David-Paul Niner wrote: >>> >>> >>>>If you don't mind dedicating a box solely to this effort, you could try >>>>the GPL'd version >>>>of smoothwall, which is available here: >>>> >>>>http://www.smoothwall.org >>>> >>>>As I understand it, their relationship to the commercial product that >>>>Smoothwall, Ltd. >>>>sells is similar to the Fedora Project's relationship to RHEL: the >>>>former is a testing >>>>grounds for the later (although it doesn't appear to be as "open" a >>>>process). >>>> >>>>For what it's worth I run the commercial version on my home network and >>>>haven't >>>>had any issues at all. And no, no one is paying me to say this! >>> >>>---- >>>this is a bit afield from OP's question but I have found ipcop >>><http://www.ipcop.org> to be a better system than smoothwall. >>> >> >>It may be somewhat better in ways, but it has an annual fee associated >>with it. >> > > ---- > maybe I'm stupid but all I have seen is GNU GPL license and have never > seen annual fee (I am presuming we are talking ipcop). Am I missing > something? > > Craig > > Whether or not there is an annual fee associated with ipcop I cannot say, but I do know that releasing software under the GPL and charging an annual support fee are not mutually exclusive propositions. Please forgive me if that was not what you were implying. Just an observation, DP -- David-Paul Niner, RHCE Orange Park, Florida, United States GPG Key ID: 0x106B54E3
