Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Vincent Danen (vdanenmandrakesoft.com)
Date: Mon Dec 03 2001 - 13:26:15 CST
On Sun Dec 02, 2001 at 03:40:27PM +0100, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> > I'll also need to look more closely at LWQ and djb's pages as I'm not
> > sure if qmail has been changed to recommend using /service instead of
> > /var/qmail/supervise. I'll need to double-check that. It might mean
> > some changes to the spec to conform to the distribution license.
> > I did take some liberties with djbdns because I didn't like it's
> > layout and put everything in /var/djbdns instead of the recommended
> > approach (with symlinks for compatability). But, since I'm
> > distributing it and MandrakeSoft isn't, I didn't really care. =)
> > Actually, I'm not sure if djbdns has the same licensing restrictions
> > as qmail... I should check that as well.
> This is an issue that really is bothering me... I have read the stuff at
> cr.yp.to over and over again, and I still don't understand which exact
> softwares have the "DJB License". I am no lawyer, I am not native speaking
> english, do I need a lawyer to understand what he means?
AFAIK, and it's been a while since I've read the stuff at his page,
only qmail is covered by his wierd distribution license. I don't
think anything else is. It's all owned by djb, and isn't released
under the GPL or another "free" license, but I think it could be more
considered "freeware" than "djbware", except for qmail. I'll have to
look at it more in depth.
> He says he has partly wavied his copyrights...., this means nothing to me...,
> but in turn..., keeps every option open for him...
This means nothing. He also says that if you download the source, you
own it. Which is pretty identical to the GPL. His restrictions are
on re-distribution of the package. You are allowed to re-distribute
patches, and I think you can even bundle up qmail, with applied
patches, and distribute it in source form. You're just unable to
distribute it in binary form.
I suspect this means that if I were to download the source, patch it,
and build it, I could use the resulting binaries anywhere in my
organization where *I* have control over things, because I own a) the
source and b) am applying patched binaries to my own systems (or those
I am responsible for). The difference is I can't make the resulting
binaries available to others outside of my organization or home;
ie. make them publically downloadable because my patched binaries do
not operate "as advertised", or as a pristine qmail does. The end
idea is to have all binary versions of qmail operate exactly the same
as if the user had followed djb's installation instructions.
> At my last job we had a lawyer looking at the GPL2 because there was a
> software I was about to introduce, and to put it in one word what he
> concluded was "maybe". (!) This was at a swedish telecom inc. company.
-- vdanen (at) mandrakesoft.com, OpenPGP key available on www.keyserver.net 1024D/FE6F2AFD 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD
Current Linux kernel 2.4.8-34.1mdk uptime: 13 days 20 hours 54 minutes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8C9HXIEPQ5f5vKv0RAobHAKCmcRqM0CFZyEdDgt+3MIFKMRsvbwCfUh7r z5FsShK7tRRD4aR2i3pof2Q= =OVrM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----