Linux Router with Firewall

[Craig White]

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.