[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> On 31/05/2001, Artur Grabowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote Cc email@example.com:
> > We can't put IPF back into our tree unless the license changes. IS IT SO
> > HARD TO UNDERSTAND? How many times do we have to repeat it?
> What I don't get in this part, is why Daren didn't say anything in
> advance. I think, it's safe to asume that he knew that OpenBSD was
> changing the source and also redistributing that.
For five years already.
> Some SSH/OpenSSH memories come alive ..
> And the stuff about "dont giving back changes" .. erm, he could
> fetch the changes (which are not allowed in advance!) from CVS at
> any time.
> For the tech-relevance, I would prefer to see a (personal) solution
> between darren and the OpenBSD team. As the license says that *with
> permission* it's possible.
I am getting tired of you people who can't read term #2 of
http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html. Are your english skills not good
enough to understand what the word "any" means? It does not mean "some".
It means "all".
> > THE LICENSE ON IPF DOESN'T ALLOW OPENBSD TO INCLUDE IT IN THE KERNEL.
> It would allow it, if darren would give a permission to openbsd ..
And to companies who use OpenBSD? There are perhaps 10 of them who use
modifications, that I know of so far. Do they all need to ask too?
And what if Angelos adds the same rules to the ipsec code?
And Niklas to the isakmpd daemon?
And Markus to OpenSSH, so that Apple has to ask for permission before
You may be thinking of only yourself, but I am thinking of ANY people
(that means "all")
- Re: ipf
- From: Philipp Buehler <firstname.lastname@example.org>