Darren and everyone,

I don't see anything in Darren's analysis that's incorrect (except for the
possibility of a childish jab at the OBSD project, but who cares).

The issue of contention is that DJB seems to want his software in the ports
tree (really, I have no idea why, with his apparently low opinion of the
software, and the project group it comes from), but he wants it in there
under *his* terms and no one else's.

This is at odds with what the ports people are doing with the tree, and
since it's their sandbox, he has no right to try and dictate rules.

However, he *does* get to dictate the rules with his software. So, the
decisions he's made regarding the redistribution of his software are at
odds with what the people running the ports tree want to do with both the
ports tree and DJBs software. *So*, in order to play nice, DJB's software
doesn't live in the ports tree, because the people maintaining ports want
to follow his wishes, and stay out of any legal trouble that might arise in
the future.

Now, there's all kinda of things that can be done here:

1: The folks doing ports can change their minds and decide they'll live
with the edicts that DJB issues. I doubt they'll do that. It's their
right. No one is morally obligated to include any kid of software in any
kind of distribution, *especially* when it's a volunteer organization.

2: DJB can start letting his software come out under some type of license,
perhaps one that allows the people doing ports for OpenBSD to make the
changes they wish so they feel comfortable having DJB's stuff in the ports
tree. It's not like we haven't seen license changes in the past.

We know that neither of these things are likely to happen, though I don't
know why anyone on these lists care so much that I have to get three full
screens in my mail client about this crap. So let's look at something a
little more feasible:

3: Some folks start up their own ports tree, they let DJB software in
there, and make whatever other changes they'd like to in order to make
themselves and their potential users happy. I advocate this solution above
all others, if for nothing else then to have all you people shut up about
it already. This way everyone is happy. The ports folks can get on with
doing some actual work and DJB can have his cake & eat it too.

4: DJB can start his own OS and prove that he's a better person and coder
than everyone else in the world, ever. This at least would take one more
person off of these lists who apparently (having fully completed all his
software projects) has nothing better to do than take shots at OpenBSD and
the developpers behind it.

I'm not sure if anyone here is aware of it, but this is BSD licensed
software. Once you've determined that the developpers are truly clueless
fools and are never going to listen to your obviously superior opinions,
you're so very much free to fork the damned project, or just not use it at all.

Regards,

Chris

At 08:22 PM 9/4/01, Darren Reed wrote:
>In some mail from J.C. Roberts, sie said:
>[...]
> > If he really believes his software and ideas are so great, he should
> > have the guts to put them under the BSD license and let the public
> > decide whether or not his way is the best way doing things.
>
>Actually, I think the problem is fairly easy to understand.
<snip>

>This is just my _own_ opinion and may be a load of horse shit.
>
>Darren

Megan: "Ethics are rather inconvenient..."
Phillip: "Cognitive dissonance reduces my productivity."
- goats.com, 24/08/2001

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]