Linux Router with Firewall

[Jeff Vian]

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.
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>