On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 15:27, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 14:57, Ray Olszewski wrote: > > Am I mistaken, or doesn't Bering (and Dachstein, and perhaps the other > > variants) use some components with idiosyncratic licenses that don't meet > > the standards (e.g, the DFSG or OSG criteria) for either free or Open > > Source licensing ? I'm thinking in particular of the DJB stuff (dnscache, > > tinydns) and one of the intrusion detection packages. I also recall that > > there used to be issues with DoC module code, though I believe current DoC > > support uses OSG-compliant licensing. > > Correct, but I thought we were discussing the code created by our > project members, and not code packaged by us. I agree the DJB packages > may have some problems, but I think we came to the conclusion earlier > that this was a borderline case. The M-Systems DoC driver license was > unacceptable, and was never distributed from our SF site.
Additional info: I believe the versions of PortSentry on our site are under the old license, and are alright. Please let me know if my belief is incorrect. http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/leaf/bin/packages/glibc-2.0/psentry.lrp -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
