[auveair]

> Hey, listen, the company is putting a lot of effort into pfSense for which they are not paid.

And? pfsense uses thousands of packages that they don't pay for either, that's the spirit of open source, I can't understand who post this on HN without understanding it.

@dang: Can we ban these comments? Lately they arrive like clockwork and bring very little to the comments, especially since it doesn't seem to be talking about anyone here.

edit: at the time of this comment I can't find any top post complaining like the OP is describing.

[dewey]

> pfsense uses thousands of packages that they don't pay for either, that's the spirit of open source

You are miss-understanding what open source means. It doesn't mean everything has to be free. Many companies are built on top of open source software which allows them to do exactly that in their license. You also don't know if pfsense sponsors packages or contributes code to the packages they are using.

It's the right of every open source software author to continue working on their software privately under a different license, and that's exactly what happened here.

Just because you are not happy that you don't have access to their software for free any more doesn't mean it's against the open source spirit.

[auveair]

> It's the right of every open source software author to continue working on their software privately under a different license, and that's exactly what happened here.

Yep, and nobody had any qualms about it in this thread, which is why I find such posts to be tiresome to read.

> Just because you are not happy that you don't have access to their software for free any more doesn't mean it's against the open source spirit.

This is exactly what I'm complaining about, I never said I wasn't happy.

[red-iron-pine]

whole lotta people making a ton of money from FOSS, selling packages on hardware. everything android or MacOS comes to mind