[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?



> > We include a wrapper for it in the ports tree because they have a
> > non-discretionary licence.
> 
> Nonsense.

We have a very clear differentiation between the rules for source
patches and binary (non-)patches.

All the other projects do too.

If you don't understand our rules (and clearly don't want to
understand them) why do you keep posting?  Are you going to change my
mind (quite questionable), or do you think you are going to change
Marc Espie's mind (he decides what packages exist... and to be quite
honest I must tell you that he's French... to be honest, I think your
chances are somewhere halfway between 0 and NULL).

> Netscape decides for itself what Netscape 4 modifications are allowed---
> just as I decide what qmail modifications are allowed. Netscape hides
> the source code to discourage third-party patches. Netscape also has
> private commercial arrangements with several other companies.

Yes, and Netscape have never returned my phone calls so we can be on
their "special list".  And you have never returned email about special
"do what you like" rules for your stuff.  That said, Netscape's
policies strictly DO PERMIT us to install Netscape in the places where
our default install policy desire it to be installed.  It happens to
be the default that they prefer, although they do not state any issue
with other locations.  YOU DO.  In a word, strictly following the
informal rules that we apply to such situations, they are "compatible"
and you are an 'asshole'.

So, there is no beef.

Where's the beef?  Where's the beef?  IN YOUR HEAD.

> Despite all this, and despite all your sermons about freedom, you've
> been distributing Netscape 4 ports for years. Hypocrite.

You do not understand the issue, and you keep ignoring it.  (Every
time you post, it increases the happiness I feel for when I stopped
short of proceeding into a graduate degree... because I would not want
to be one of those people who got a graduade degree, and became
incapable of of listening.  READ THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE AGAIN, DAN.

That said, we do not distribute a netscape PACKAGE on CDROM.  And I
would be sceptical of seeing it on the FTP sites, and if you see such
a thing, please let us know, because it is an error.  Let us be clear.
We distribute a port.  Just as we distribute an Opera port.  These things
do NOT violate a license, because we are allowed to make decisions at the
PORTS level.  Distributing your stuff would VIOLATE your wishes, since you
demande that we NOT MAKE DECISIONS AT THE PORTS LEVEL.

Both Netscape and Opera licences permit what OpenBSD users needs.

YOU DO NOT.  If you are not capable of understanding the difference,
please, in the interest of mailing list pease and to be kind to our
user community, why don't you just FUCK OFF?

(I am only saying this because 100's of people are thinking the same)

Dan, PLEASE STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE.

> > > I checked ftp.openbsd.org yesterday, and it was still there.
> > And yesterday you claimed it was on the CD.
> 
> Sorry. Either way, you've been distributing the package for years.

Fact is, as far as I know, we have never distributed a netscape
package on CD (or we would be in violation) or on FTP (which is more
questionable: but on different terms, since I have mailed and phoned
Netscape and they have not answered my questions).  I've been trying
for years to tell our package guys that perhaps we should distribute
Netscape packages... but they we shouldn't, even though my reading of
the license says we perhaps could, they disagree.... and by the way,
huge cudos to them for being as strong willed regarding FTP sites as I
normally am regarding CDs.

What do you guys think... are our package guys wrong about us
distributing Netscape packages.. and if so, can you please go pester
Netscape (and Opera at the same time) about this issue?