Pardon my ignorance, but why is tinydns/qmail/etc under a restrictive license? I've been very interested in running tinydns (I run bind now because there are debian packages) but I run the debianized(src package) qmail because I think it's the best server out there for my purpose. I really don't like bind's configuration, and lack of security, so I've been looking at switching to tinydns for some time, however having to compile by source on debian has given me problems before, so I was hoping for a debianized package, even if it's another src package.
Is it just so that no trojans can be popped into the source as we've been seeing much of recently, and DJB getting falsely blamed? Or is it another reason? -- Matt Andreko -----Original Message----- From: Jeff S Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:47 AM To: D. J. Bernstein Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DNS servers The draconian license you use to distribute tinydns and other software is problematic for me. I can accept different zone file syntax with ease, and can even adapt myself to the notion that the filesytem is used as a configuration database. I can also understand that your resistance to a license that would allow binary distribution, or distribution of patched sources, is well-intentioned, but I cannot agree with it. -- Jeff S Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]