Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> Andrew Hoying, 2001-07-17 08:36 -0600
> >I guess by making these packages available for download, the LEAF
> >project's various LRP variants are technically a distribution. We don't,
> >however, have anyone at the present time auditing the variety of packages
> >now available for LRP variants from a variety of sources on the web.
> >Perhaps we need to create a document stating what is and isn't acceptable
> >as redistributable package, I.E. only debian packages and their upgrades,
> >etc. Personally I see LRP as a great resource for allowing people to build
> >thin servers to do exactly what they need them to do, and as such I would
> >like to make as many of these kinds of tools available to people as possible.
>
> Andrew,
> In the spirit of being as inclusive as possible, I'd like us to allow
> developers to create whatever packages/images etc. that they feel will help
> the project. However, we can't go against the original developers wishes,
> and violate his/her chosen licence.
I agree with Mike. While I am very much in favor of Open Source, I also
feel that we should not limit ourselves too completely. However, in the
case of djbtools, the licensing requirements are uniquely stringent:
1. You can't change the program's name.
2. You can't change the directory it runs from.
3. You can't change the source and release it.
4. In some cases, the license expires.
> Has anyone contacted DJB? He may be willing to make an exception for the
> LEAF project, or even create packages himself.
If you've read his licensing, it sounds as if he is quite dedicated to
his views, though he does mention "waivers."
Compare this OSI definition of Open Source:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html
...with djb's licensing terms:
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
Don't match up...
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
