Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aissen | Hacker News Reader

Yes, guilty as charged. Ever since I saw you presentation in Paris in last September, I was dying for wireguard to come out.

I'm curious what will be your strategy with regard to working or not with upstream Linux ?

View on HN

Oh cool you came to the kernel recipes talk. Much has progressed since then.

I wrote an email on LKML and netdev today to David Miller, the network subsystem maintainer. It's not ready for a [PATCH] set now, but it is ready to get initial feedback from them, so that I can start to get things ready for upstreaming. So: that's on the roadmap and a primary objective!

For those of you who're interested, the mail to LKML can be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/28/629

Would you mind dual-licensing under a more permissive license (BSD or MIT) so the work can be included in the BSD family of operating systems as well as Linux?

I answered this question elsewhere. The answer is that - probably, why not? I need to think about it for more than a few seconds. But the only reason I chose GPLv2 is because that's what Linux uses. I'll quit being lazy and think more carefully about licenses, and hopefully we'll wind up with something good for the BSDs.

I am not a lawyer but in my eyes having a BSD/MIT license will also save you from a corporation "adopting" your technology and sue you afterwards for infringing a super vague patent of theirs... or something along the lines.

If your work is in the public domain, then at least the corporations would have much harder time hijacking and wall-garden it, and the chances of them simply giving up are higher. Or so I hope.

I've read a good chunk of your website. GREAT WORK! Do not give up, you're doing next-level work. =)

Yeah, you're not a lawyer. This is nonsensical gibberish.

The corporations haven't really left us with good impressions in the last 15 years though, did they?

If I learned anything from those last 15 years is that they'll sue you if you don't agree the Moon is made of cheese if it suits their agenda.

So I remain cynical towards them. If they can hijack a good technology for their own profit, they will do it. I think we all knew that much at this point?

is this really a thing?

As I pointed out, I am not a lawyer. I have however read news vaguely similar to what I described, many times through the years. It really makes me fearful that in the end you're vulnerable just for publishing your work...

I do hope I am very naively wrong. But history hasn't given us much comfort in this area so far.

Thanks for considering it! For what it's worth, there is dual BSD/GPL precedent in various places in Linux (e.g., most of the drm GPU drivers, NTB, etc).

Can I bind it to external ip addresses and give a certain user an outgoing (or even private ips that I can then forward) address I chose? Don't know if my question makes sense but I'm interested in routing a certain user to a certain ip every time he/she connects.

WireGuard as a simple associations between public keys and each public keys list of allowed IPs. Within this structure, it seems like you should be able to do what you want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com