[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 16:55:54 +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 01:26:17AM -0700, J . C . Roberts wrote:
> I was replying to your other message when this one came in...
> and you're right I should have said `package' rather than `port' in
> that last line.
> Not that it's a reasonable thing to do but what do you think the
> chances are the DJB will allow an OpenBSD package of his software to
> be distributed with a install dir of /usr/farbledarf/djb/jaberwocky/ ?
A precompiled package? I doubt it ;)
I still dont think there should be a problem with a port though, as I said in the other reply.
Aagh, to many different threads.
Oh, oops, I'm supposed to work too....
> >Uh, forcing someone to use/install a certain piece of software is
> >significantly different from preventing people from releasing/distributing
> >unapproved derivative work.
> True but only if the odds of a derivative work being approved are not
No. They're still not the same issue. One is forcing something onto you while the other prevents you from doing something with someone else's intellectual property.
> PITA but workable.
> I keep imagining this perfect world where someone from one side says
> hey if you change your license and give us time to audit the code, we
> will incorporate it in the source tree as a fork you can maintain and
> someone from the other side says cool, here it is.
Well, yeah, but, in way, that is forcing *your* view onto other people.
Whatever license a person decides to use is totally up to them and if someone dont like the license, well, touch luck, dont use it.
And of course, if a distributor feel the license is incompatible they're free to remove it.
Wether all these decisions are bad or good for the software in case is of course an entirely different matter.
> And the having an OpenBSD installation routine with questions like:
> BIND or DJBDNS ? Yes, No, Neither or Both
> Sendmail or QMail ? Yes, No, Neither or Both
> pkg or /package ? Yes, No, Neither or Both
> I better get some sleep, since I'm probably already dreaming...
Personally I could do well without both Bind and Sendmail. ;)`