> it surely isn't in a professional and business world especially when the work is sponsored ( being paid ).

To play devil's advocate: Netgate isn't paying Jason, and they're taking his open source code to create a proprietary commercial project. I'd say Jason owes them exactly nothing in the way of courtesy or consideration. Could he have been more polite for the sake of being polite and community goodwill? Probably.

>and they're taking his open source code to create a proprietary commercial project.

I am not sure if that is the case. Netgate seems to have used their old crappy sponsored work for their Pfsense.

That is judging from the two pieces of information here. Jason doesn't need to be of consideration for Netgate. There could be other communication we dont know about. I can certainly understand why Scott is frustrated.

>I am not sure if that is the case. Netgate seems to have used their old crappy sponsored work for their Pfsense.

Their sponsored work was based off of the Linux and OpenBSD code that Jason and others wrote. And even if it didn't utilize that code, you literally can't write a wireguard client without building on Jason's work.

WireGuard is an open-source project, and an important one. It seems to me that if you want to push to create the authoritative WireGuard implementation for a major open source OS, the commercial norms need to take a back seat.

It is unprofessional and bad business to deliberately sell your customers insecure code, and you should not expect anyone to support you in doing so. Jason would have veen within his rights to warn Netgate's customers about security holes in pfSense - but he didn't even do that, he made a comment on his own project's mailing list, intentionally not naming the company, about what he was doing and why, which is entirely within the realm of "professional."

(And there is, of course, the question of whether Netgate is in any way "professional" by building on top of an open project and not following its norms.)