Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique (fwd)

Ian Smith smithi at nimnet.asn.au
Sat Mar 23 05:17:54 UTC 2013

Joe, your mailer dropped -questions from the ccs on your response. 
Fixed, Ian

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:12:18 -0400
From: Fbsd8 <fbsd8 at a1poweruser.com>
To: freebsd-jail at freebsd.org
Cc: Ian Smith <smithi at nimnet.asn.au>, Dirk Engling <erdgeist at erdgeist.org>
Subject: Re: Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

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 matter.

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-questions mailing list