Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique
fbsd8 at a1poweruser.com
Fri Mar 22 22:12:20 UTC 2013
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:53:30 +0100, Dirk Engling wrote:
> > On 18.03.13 20:16, sib at tormail.org wrote:
> > > to configure things themselves. In my experience, ezjail is a much better
> > > solution. I also see that you are the maintainer/author of qjail and like
> > > to shovel your opinion as the only solution, both in this "rewrite" and
> > > all over the FreeBSD forums.
> > Taking a look at the qjail code I can not help to notice several odd
> > similarities with the ezjail-admin script, down to the very basic bail
> > out routines. I would not go so far to claim it was just a global
> > search/replace job but to me the code looks familiar enough to find the
> > # Copyright 2010, Qjail project. All rights reserved.
> > offensive. I am usually quite open with the license of my software,
> > beerware is as permissive as it gets. I just can not take some script
> > kiddie right out copying my code verbatim and selling it as his, not
> > even acknowledging me as the original author.
> > Anyone here with suggestions how to properly react to this kind of "fork"?
> Yes. Publicity. Making sure the FreeBSD community gets to finds out.
> You may be polite and un-selfserving enough to not go so far Dirk, but
> I will. Huge swathes of qjail are direct copies of your code, in most
> cases only with the names of the variables changed from ezjail_* to
> qjail_*. I found it cute renaming 'flavour' to the American spelling.
> Anyone looking at bin/qjail from qjail-2.1.tbz alongside the latest
> ezjail-admin (mine downloaded from your cvsweb) cannot fail to notice
> within the first couple of screens. Sure there are changes, additions
> and deletions, but to fail to acknowledge the original authorship of
> this code, and the implication that Joe Barbish (aka 'Qjail project') is
> its original author is entirely outrageous; not ethical, even if legal.
> To that end I'm cross-posting this to -questions, where Mr Barbish has
> also posted about his proposed "rewrite" of Chapter 16 of the Handbook,
> which is nothing but a huge and poorly written manual for 'the qjail
> way', with its peculiar assumptions and unique "jailcell" terminology.
> "Fourth Generation", no less!
> The idea that the "doc gang" would entertain the idea of removing all of
> the worthy content of the present Chapter 16 - even if it does need some
> updating - and replace it with this effort is laughable, yet stranger
> things have happened if there's any disconnect between developers and
> documenters .. witness the Handbook firewalls section, by Joe Barbish.
> cheers, Ian
Boy this simple critique request sure has gotten out of hand. So lets
set the record straight.
On the subject ezjail not being referenced in the document like it is in
the current version of the online handbook is just a writing content
error. The document being critiqued is the first public draft. Pointing
out over sights like not included ezjail in that section is the type of
constructive feedback that is desired. Any inference it was done on
purpose is just crazy. When it comes to the question of the handbook
jail chapter needing updating, A member of the document team has already
offered to partner up with me to get it added to the handbook as fast as
possible. To me that means the document team is already aware the
current handbook jail chapter is outdated and has just been waiting for
someone to write a update which is just what I did. If you people have a
beef with that, take it up with the document team not me. If any of you
think you can do a better job then NOW is the time to step up or shut up.
On the subject of qjail being a fork of ezjail, of course it is.
Qjail was developed by the qjail project team who are a group of FreeBSD
users who live around Angeles City, Philippines. Of the seven members 2
are foreigners living in the area, one American and one British. Our
British member concluded that the author of ezjail must be British based
solely on the spelling of the flavour directory. He also convinced us
that his Beerware license was British humor, a joke, and should not be
taken serous. In our review of other jail ports we did not see this
Beerware license again or for that matter, see it in any of the 5000+
ports we looked at or use. So the group coincided to the British members
view point as sound advice.
If you inspect the qjail source, you should recognize the comments at
the beginning as a copy of what is included in every FreeBSD config
file. It was inserted in the front like they have. We though that was
how you make software opensource which was the intention. There are no
formal copyright documents; it's just a extrapolation from the FreeBSD
comments. Maybe our local view of worldly subjects like this is not
correct, so please forgive us and help use learn what the accepted
viewpoint should be. I was chosen the project leader and public voice
only because my English was the best among us. If the Freebsd comments
section is not appropriate to include qjail under Freebsd opensource
type of license, then we can change the comments to say "totally free to
do as you wish as opensource" and leave it at that. If something else is
needed, please inform what that is by private email. To continue this
this subject in public is not appropriate. Please respect our wish in
This is to Ian Smith, your tone and uncalled for content is very
un-professional and borders on slander. In some circles it would label
you as a flame war inciter and get you banned from the list. Best you
read what you write before posting it so you can reconsider the tone of
what you have written. Please present a more professional manner in your
list post content. Thank you Ian for your attention to this matter in
future posts to this list and any other Freebsd lists you may belong to.
More information about the freebsd-jail