On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:12:31 +0800, you wrote:

>On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:38:59PM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
>> I don't mean to be argumentative but please check your facts and ask
>> DJB himself if his license allows you to install /package and /service
>> to anywhere in your file system that you choose... -As stated, his
>> license explicitly forbids derivative works using alternate
>> installations because you are not allowed patch the files necessary to
>> prevent his software from installing in their default locations. The
>> OpenBSD ports maintainers are not allowed by his license to build a
>> port that install his software to /usr/farbledarf/djb/jaberwocky/ ;-)
>
>Hmm...No..and yes.
>*You* can install his software whereever the heck you want. You can make your
>own machines have /package in /tmp if you so like to.
>You can patch and modify whatever files you want *AND* distribute those patches.
>What you can NOT do is distribute an already patched/modified source or binary
>package unless you have his approval.
>Wich is, of course, why OpenBSD cant keep it in the ports or package tree.
>So, uhm, please check your facts :P
>

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/ ?

>> In the case of /package, installing it anywhere other than off the
>> root totally blows the entire concept which DJB is trying to promote,
>> namely consistency across unix-like platforms. I agree with his
>> sentiments about consistency across platforms but cramming it down
>> everyones throat with a restrictive license is no different than
>> Microsoft forcing their web browser on everyone who uses their
>> operating systems through the licensing stipulations they placed on
>> the VARS who make and sell `preloaded' systems. Just because it worked
>> for Microsoft doesn't mean it was a scrupulous thing to do.
>
>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
zero.

>Besides, there is no license for /package. Some of his software installs
>in /package by default but you can move it to whereever you like.
>
>Lars

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.

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...

JCR

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