Subject: Re: Licensing questions for misc djb and djb-related packages
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Kevin Sindhu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/02/2001 19:21:27
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:57:32AM +0900, email@example.com penned:
> Doesn't the following from http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html:
> give the impression that non-binary NetBSD packages are fine?
Yes and no...
> My understanding is that all a non-binary package contains is
> instructions for downloading, patching, compiling, and (de)installing.
> It doesn't contain modified source or binaries -- it doesn't even
> contain the original source code. I do not see how the two are
Well, have a look at the this thread and follow its argument(which
gets a bit unclear down the road), but nevertheless:
(Sub: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?)
> It certainly helps to have packages from an administrative
> perspective. If several people are using the software, it seems silly
> to duplicate the effort. But we all know this already ;-)
> I want no such thing -- I'm not convinced there is a problem.
Are you changing any style which as per DJB is unauthorized? I remember
seeing an e-mail where DJB refused to help a FreeBSD'er as he'd
installed the package from the FreeBSD ports. Here's an excerpt:
D. J. Bernstein wrote:
| ``The port'' is unauthorized and unsupported. It does not correctly
| install daemontools. Remove it, and do the installation properly:
| Then complain to the author of ``the port.''
I'd check thread above before concluding...;-).Anyway, my intention in
this case is entirely to stop this from happening again some time down the
road in NetBSD packages...
Age before beauty; and pearls before swine.
-- Dorothy Parker