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

Re: ipf



 Wed, May 30, 2001 at 10:19:11, jlockard wrote about "Re: ipf": 

> I'm confused (as many probably are) in how Darren changed the
> license.  I'm thinking that Darren, however good a programmer
> he might be, just doesn't understand English.  How does saying
> 'Redistribution in source and binary forms is permitted as
> long as the license file is preserved and due credit is given
> the original author' [paraphrase], equate to "Yes, this means
> that derivitive or modified works are not permitted without
> the author's prior consent."    [Exact License quoted below]

Because original license does not say anything to permit _modification_.
Permission to modify is omitted. Compare with OpenBSD:

=== ... cut ... ===
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
=== end cut ===
This license explicitly allows modification. ipfilter's one - doesn't.
Yes, one section in logical chain is silently omitted, but IMHO you
cannot say that it does not exist.


/netch