On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:58:34 +0800, you wrote:

>On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 04:38:22PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
>> It's amazing how DJB can be smart enough to write some really great
>> software but not be able to realize how his license destroys it's
>> usability.
>
>Does it? Why? Because it cant be packaged with OpenBSD or any other distro
>in any way they see fit?
>Geez, how goddamn difficult is it to install qmail:
>tar zxvf qmail-1.03.tar.gz
>cd qmail-1.03
>make
>make setup check
>
>Wow, that's REALLY difficult now, isn't it? If that is too difficult for
>someone to do I doubt they should be using a Unix-based OS in the first
>place, or at least learn more before installing and operating a mail system.
>

Although your example is broken, I understand and agree with your
point.

>> If all of his software were under the BSD license and these
>> programs actually prove to be superior to alternatives they would be
>> used a lot more because people can use them as they see fit.
>
>People CAN use them as they see fit. Use is not the same as distribute. You
>can patch and modify all you want and even distribute your patches. What you
>CANT do is distribute patched or modified versions.
>

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.

>> If /package is such a great idea, people would use it exactly as he
>> intends it to be used but since people don't have a choice to use it
>> as they see fit, they probably won't bother using it at all.
>
>If they could use it as the saw fit the well-organized structure and
>portability would be lost and so also the benefit from it.
>

The main reasoning behind /package is building a degree of consistency
across unix-based platforms, so installing it anywhere other than
where it's supposed to go blows the entire reason for it. The idea
itself, IMHO, is a good one but cramming it down peoples throats
through a license restriction is no different than Microsoft forcing
MSIE to be installed by their VARS through licensing stipulations
placed on installing their operating system.

If /package and the reasoning behind it is such a great idea, then let
decision to use it as intended and where intended be decided through
natural selection because it's more fit to survive.

>> In spite of the intelligence and experience it takes to write code as
>> well as DJB does, all of his name calling, condescending remarks and
>> begging to be included in the ports tree fail to hide the simple fact
>> that he lacks both the stones and brains to put his software under a
>> BSD license and let his ideas stand on their technical merits alone.
>
>It's amazing how people think that BSD and/or GNU are the be-all-end-all
>licencing schemes. Just because it doesnt use any of those licenses doesnt
>mean the software isnt any good.
>

I won't say anything about the GNU GPL because I don't have many nice
things to say about it and none of them come to mind at the moment.

I never said or implied DJB's software isn't any good, in fact I think
it's amazingly good but he is shooting himself in the foot with his
licensing. I appreciate the OpenBSD developers wanting to maintain
consistency in the lay out of their file system and don't believe DJB
or anyone else should dictate what can and can not be done with the
layout regardless if he has a good idea and valid reasoning for it.
DJB doesn't seem to realize, if he put /package under a BSD license
and enough people like it because it's superior, then it _will_ become
the de facto standard for BSD systems because it can be included in
the source tree... The most fit survive.

>> 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.
>
>Why? Because you say so? What has the license got to do with deciding wether
>or not the programs are good? You have the source code already.
>

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.

>This is an utterly pointless thread anyway, that has been beaten to death all
>too many times already.
>
>Lars

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.

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
happening.

JCR

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