Any proprietary code would have to be code that was added on top of that.

That generalization is wrong. If the license does not state that freedom one can revoke said thing. The author(s) can change the entire license.

If not stated you may be able to fork off a previous version. Depending on the CLA (or its absence) you may have to speak with any contributor prior to publishing your fork!!!

So, you had to choose between the code that was still Open Source and the code that was now proprietary.

You are skipping ahead. The code the userbase follows may become the proprietary one.

If you stick with the Open Source, what you describe does not happen.

And this isn’t guaranteed with a permissive license.

If you moved to the proprietary, well, there you are. You clearly decided that the new features were more important than it being Open Source.

If this change happens without the knowledge on the userbase now the Open Source solution needs to advocade for it. And its competition supports all of its features and more. And will clearly upstream any features it adds as well.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t mean to abandon all projects done by corporations. But a better license gives safety to all users.

Remember, it is only the new features. All the old code remains as open as it ever was.

You are not considering vendor lock-in, upstreaming open source changes, less transparency in regards of security, attributions, changes to contributer license agreements, conflicts of interest and probably more things.

Good luck picking another license than GPL for this requirement.

And it the fork gets adapted the user base doesn’t use an open source project anymore. Changes which aren’t synced get shipped and you can’t substitute anymore.

Permissive licenses are bad: Someone can take your entire code, build upon it, get hand of the userbase and then make weird changes. They don’t protect the users in any form.

Just imagine someone changed the tools you use daily in such a way that none of your workflows are executed in the same way prior.

You just learn this once you are truly affected. And trust me - This sucks hard.

If your routes aren’t changing, then your device, as a client, isn’t going to reach anything. You’ll need to see a route for the 10.20.0.0/24 subnet show up that points to whatever the endpoint address is on the other end.

Nope, none shows up. I am looking via ip route, right?

So if that’s all your server config is, it’s only going to allow one peer at a time. You can confirm this by disconnecting your android device from the tunnel, and then connecting using the same info from your Linux device.

Just looked up the config created by opnsense. You were right. I had to restart wireguard to update the config file so that my other peers (like this debian machine) could connect. Thank’s for helping me out!

You also at a minimum should have PostUP and PostDown directives to properly forward incoming traffic on your wg interface.

That is hopefully managed by NetworkManager, isn’t?

1. my routes doesn’t change: default via 192.168.66.110 dev wlP6p1s0 proto dhcp src 192.168.66.211 metric 600 and 192.168.66.0/24 dev wlP6p1s0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.66.211 metric 600.
2. After some seconds I can access the internet but not my subnet IPs I should be able to ping. So I was wondering if I am even using my VPN connection. I can observe my outgoing connections on my opnsense (but not when doing this on my computer, the device in question).
3. It just contains:

[Peer]
PublicKey = X
Endpoint = IP:NondefaultPort
AllowedIPs = 0.0.0.0\0,::/0

My tunnel address should be 10.200.0.13/32 once connected.

Yes. Then I imported said config additionally via nmcli connection import type wireguard file /etc/wireguard/wg0.conf which may be duplication.

!! is the last command in my shell.

Syntax get’s twisted here. Second ^ is inserted automatically. As well as the One after the actual bash line.

What it does: Bind Ctrl+Backspace to cd ...

bind '"^H":"cd ..^M"'

Thank you for your kind words and objective perspective.

Indeed it is. Though I just started to leverage its capabilities.

Nonetheless, I would again buy into aarch64.

I will be more sensible the next time and I took my lesson. Thank you for elaborating clearly!

I don’t see myself like this but thanks for your analysis.

I paid 1200 EUR.

You may chime in here: I purchased it with three years of support as well (they [Lenovo] exchanged my brickes speakers, btw).

Thank you for your persistance. Edited it, Sir or Madame.

You are untinted. Tha nk 's for th is, bot.

Of whom?

I edited both: