[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- From: Lars Hansson <lars-openbsd-misc_(_at_)_unet_(_dot_)_net_(_dot_)_ph>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:39:17 +0800
- Mail-followup-to: Lars Hansson <lars-openbsd-misc_(_at_)_unet_(_dot_)_net_(_dot_)_ph>, misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 12:57:08AM -0700, J . C . Roberts wrote:
> Although your example is broken, I understand and agree with your
That's quite possible. I typed it from memory and didnt check the exact filenames.
> As you know an OpenBSD port from the source tree only distributes
> patches and an make file. If those patches cause the application to be
> installed in different way than the default DJB approved installation
> method, then distributing a package of that port is a in violation of
> his license.
Hmmm..point taken. If you consider distributing both the source and the pathces together as a "patched pacakge" it would violate it.
But technically it is not an entity since you are downloading different parts and just using a script to "put it all together", so to speak.
[snip package stuff]
As i said in the other thread, /package doesnt have a license. Nothing stops you from having package anywhere you like. of course, this will cause problems with software that *expects* it to be in /.
> I never said DJB's programs are not good, in fact, they are well
> beyond good and into the realm of great in the technical sense but the
> license being used on them _prevents_ his programs from totally
> replacing the currently used (and often inferior) free code.
Good point. Although a lot of programs etc gets popular even without "free" licenses.
You made it sound like the technical quality was affected by the license.
> Some of it has been beaten to death, but is not pointless. DJB may
> never change his license but I want him to realize if he truly
> believes his software and methods are superior, the only way they can
> become the de facto standards is if he changes his license to
> something along the lines of the BSD or Apache style. This is _NOT_
> about whether or not DJB's software is any good, it's about whether or
> not his license is preventing it from being as useful and wide spread
> as it could be and whether or not he is willing to face public
> acceptance/denial of the technical merits of his methods and opinions
> which will be expressed by how closely all derivative works track the
> functionality and implementation of his original.
Actually, I though the thread was about what the license allows?
But yeah, this thread isnt quite as pointless as most of the DJB licesne threads. At least this thread has some parts that isnt "I dont like his license!", "It's not GPL!!!!" etc.
> If DJB really believes his ideas and software are superior to any
> available alternative, he will release it under a different
> (BSD/Apache) license so it _can_ become the de facto standard. Some of
> his ideas and software _ARE_ good enough to make it to the top of the
> Darwinist unix food chain but his license is preventing that from ever
Isn't Solaris/Aix/etc at the top of the chain somewhere? That would kind of violate that statement, wouldnt it? :P