On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 18:38 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 15:46 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:02 -0500, David-Paul Niner wrote: > > > Craig White wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 13:07 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > > > > > > > >>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, > > ---- > > I wasn't implying anything other than what I said - that the software > > carries a GNU/GPL license and I've never seen anything that stated an > > annual fee to be associated with it - for any reason. If Jeff or anyone > > cares to point out where these fees are mentioned, I would appreciate it > > since I am using ipcop at a number of clients and have given up on > > smoothwall for a number of reasons (and I note that smoothwall is > > interested in support contracts and renumeration for extra features). > > > > I was thinking that Jeff was confused and wanted him to elaborate on his > > point. > > > > Craig > > > I had understood that a friend of mine was using ipcop and there was an > annual subscription fee for it. > He is sys admin at a local school and they use a filtering set of rules > that determine where the kids are allowed to surf, and where email can > come from. > It is possible I misunderstood him and there is a fee for additional > firewall rules to maintain an up-to-date ruleset from somewhere else and > that ipcop is just the underlying base system. > I see from the web site that ipcop itself is free. ---- Anything is possible but they do use a standard implementation of iptables/netfilter so reliance upon a 3rd party is sometimes handy but clearly not necessary and their mail list support is quite good. I think that the implementation of Dan's Guardian might incur some cost but that is an optional implementation. Some confuse smoothwall and ipcop - presumably because ipcop was originally a fork from smoothwall's GPL code and still retains some visual & mechanical elements but it has been entirely redone, down to it's LFS core (no longer an ancient Red Hat Linux base). Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
