On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:38:17 +0000 Cian Brennan <cian.brennan@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 08:40:25AM +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:15:30 +0100 Phil Regnauld <regnauld@nsrc.org> wrote:
Nick Hilliard (nick) writes:
There is a FAQ entry for ipv6 support in ipplan:
One feature request that comes up from time to time is IPv6. Adding IPv6 support will require major effort but has such a limited audience. Ironically the only people that ever requested IPv6 support are either from Telcos, ISP?s or government departments, yet they are never interested in contributing resources! I deam them parasites of the Open Source world - leaching off the good will and effort of the Open Source community, yet give nothing in return.
Shame. And "deam" is "deem".
q.v. http://iptrack.sourceforge.net/doku.php?id=faq
I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.
Yeah, sad.
I think that if he didn't want commercial organisations to use his software, he shouldn't have chosen a licence that permits them to (the GPL according to the home page). If that's his attitude to possible future contributors and to IPv6, then it seems to me that iptrack has jumped the shark.
It sounds far more like that's his attitude to those who keep annoying him about supporting something he doesn't care about, without actually contributing anything useful to the project.
It's fine for him to not want to spend time on people's requests - that is an accepted thing for open source software. But to call people/organisations who use his software legitimately and also make legitimate requests, under *his* chosen license "leaches" is disingenuous. As I said, if he didn't want commercial users to use his software, or ask for features, then he shouldn't have chosen a license that permits commercial use. Complaining about a situation he has created, by his choice of license, is puerile.
The data model used in ipplan is to enumerate all IP addresses in the working ranges. This works fine for ipv4, but obviously breaks horribly for ipv6. Political considerations aside, I suspect that this is at least some of the reason that ipplan doesn't support it.
It would indeed require a very large screen and lots of memory :)
Cheers, Phil
--
--