Re: Questions on bind-chroot

[/dev/rob0]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:04:06PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Harshith Mulky  wrote:
> 
> > Is it necessary for named.conf in the chroot path and /etc path 
> > to be same
> 
> If they aren't the same, at some point in the future you or your 
> colleagues are going to get very confused about which one is the 
> right one.
> 
> > I have 2 different named.conf in both the paths and when I am 
> > running the, service named restart, I see the named service 
> > starting from the chroot path. Is that correct?
> 
> There isn't much standardization of BIND init scripts. Some of them 
> try to keep in-chroot and out-of-chroot configuration in sync, some 
> don't, maybe depending on how the script is configured. So I can't 
> give you a direct answer; you should read your init script 
> carefully.

Also the OP should consult the distributor's documentation for their 
BIND configuration.  BIND from upstream comes unconfigured, that is, 
without anything like "bind-chroot".

In addition, as suggested upthread, it's not possible to answer any
questions which should have gone to the distributor if we don't know 
the distro & version.
-- 
  http://rob0.nodns4.us/
  Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[/dev/rob0]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:06:55PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:38:14PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > In reality, there IS no "middle ground" If you truly believe a 
> > piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes 
> > the idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.

> On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea 
> of relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the 
> GPL, I think software creators should be able to share their work 
> on whatever terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my 
> stuff away with as few encumbrances as possible.  It's 
> disappointing to me to add any burden to it at all.  I do like 
> eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many bugs if I have 
> to stop doing that. :/

Or start eating bugs? ;)

/me stares at a lightning bug going by the window (a light meal)
-- 
  http://rob0.nodns4.us/
  Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 6/14/2016 4:28 PM, Noel Butler wrote:

On 15/06/2016 05:38, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:


It seems some on the list are short on philosophy? Well here is
the actual philosophy and I'll apologize in advance that it won't fit
in a SMS message for those people unable to have deep thoughts more
complex than a SMS message. Hopefully you are not one of them.



I guess we can read this as you are, or are related to, one of these
commercial entities that are not playing nice... There is absolutely no
other reason one would be so dead against it as you are.



Or, you could simply just copy and paste my name into Linkedin and see 
who my current employer is.  Wow there's even a click-able website 
there!   What will they think up next, Maw!!!


I know, too boring.

Ted
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Noel Butler]

On 15/06/2016 05:38, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:


It seems some on the list are short on philosophy?  Well here is
the actual philosophy and I'll apologize in advance that it won't fit
in a SMS message for those people unable to have deep thoughts more
complex than a SMS message.   Hopefully you are not one of them.



I guess we can read this as you are, or are related to, one of these 
commercial entities that are not playing nice... There is absolutely no 
other reason one would be so dead against it as you are.


I have no doubt (just like spammers say what they do aint spamming) that 
you will use extreme energy to disagree, dispute or despise, as one 
famous actor once said " frankly, I dont give a damn"


--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 6/14/2016 11:47 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:

Hi Evan

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:45:59PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:

May I ask you to expand on why the MPL is a problem?  So far the distros
have all been supportive.


The BSD camp dislikes copyleft because copyleft prevents exactly what
we're trying to stop: the ability to ship a closed-source forked version
of BIND. They think that software is more free if that is allowed,
although they'd like all software to be free.

The GNU/FSF camp's view is different. In its view, a software is more
free if its freedom is protected and cannot be lost; hence the copyleft
clauses.

To a user of BIND, it makes no difference. To a restributor of BIND who
keeps the modified code free, it makes no difference. Those who are hurt
by it are those who are shipping closed-source modified versions, or
those who'd like to let others continue to do so.



From a practical perspective virtually anyone shipping a commercial 
program with modified BIND in it is almost certainly shipping an 
embedded device of some sort - a NAS or something - and they won't be 
hurt in their current product since they just won't update them.


And if they treat ISC that shabbily then how do you think they are
treating their customers - they will certainly continue to
use that older, non-copyleft version as long as it compiles.

It may be years before some of those commercial people update
their code - a license change now is not going to have immediate
effect.   Eventually one of these days the maker of
whatever CPU they are using will stop production and release a new
version with a new compiler toolkit and then they might update.

Also, has ISC realized that they just got on the biggest soapbox
they have and shouted to the world:

HEY PEEPS WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE RELEASING NEW VERSIONS OF BIND 9
SINCE WE CARE ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO MPL IT - WE HAVE FUTURE PLANS HERE

That's very good for most people but I think they just killed BIND 10.

Ted
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 6/14/2016 1:42 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:06:55PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:38:14PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

In reality, there IS no "middle ground"   If you truly believe a
piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes the
idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.


Thank you for the explanation.

As I undesrtand it, commercial entities *will* be able to use BIND as they
see fit, even if the relicensing goes ahead.  Share bug fixes back, or get
a support contract, and we're good.  We really just want everybody to be a
mensch about it.

On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea of
relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the GPL, I
think software creators should be able to share their work on whatever
terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my stuff away with as few
encumbrances as possible.  It's disappointing to me to add any burden to
it at all.  I do like eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many
bugs if I have to stop doing that. :/


This last sentence sums it up well.

There's been quite some internal discussion about the license change,
which is not a lightly attempted and achieved endeavour, and the
discussion is still continuing. There seems to be some public anger at
such a license change, but it is misdirected. Be angry for us, not at
us. We care deeply about BIND's users, the DNS and DNS users in general
(if you have any doubt about that, look at communication with ISC staff,
even if it is with a member of staff from a company that's shipping a
closed fork of BIND, or even another DNS implementation).

In reality, the world is not perfect as we expect it to be, or we would
not have to attempt this license change. It is a means to an end, for
the goal that we most care about which is to make BIND and the DNS
better and have BIND available to everyone to use, modify.

Your anger is misdirected when you say things like "kicking all BSD
distributions in the teeth". That's not what we're thinking of.



BIND occupies a unique position in the Internet - there is no law that
compels people to use DNS nor the root nameservers.  In fact nothing
prohibits Internet users using name resolution from using a completely 
alien mechanism from DNS.  And, before 1983, THEY DID.


Of all the Internet standards DNS is probably the one that the most
Internet users VOLUNTARILY choose to use.

In an ideal world, the major beneficiaries of the Internet would
equally share in funding BIND and BIND would have no license 
restrictions at all, and the ISC would not feel compelled to do this.

(or to fork the code and rename it after a doofus on the TV show
Married With Children)

I see nothing to celebrate here.  This is a wake.  Just in the name
of the spirit of openness and freedom, once you have your new release
out there under the license, sic the legal people on the a-holes who
have been abusing it, starting with the "BIND without the bugs" people,
whoever they are, as they are the ones who caused this to happen.


Ted


(also speaking for myself, not ISC.)

Mukund

___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Mukund Sivaraman]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:06:55PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:38:14PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > In reality, there IS no "middle ground"   If you truly believe a
> > piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes the
> > idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.
> 
> Thank you for the explanation.
> 
> As I undesrtand it, commercial entities *will* be able to use BIND as they
> see fit, even if the relicensing goes ahead.  Share bug fixes back, or get
> a support contract, and we're good.  We really just want everybody to be a
> mensch about it.
> 
> On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea of
> relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the GPL, I
> think software creators should be able to share their work on whatever
> terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my stuff away with as few
> encumbrances as possible.  It's disappointing to me to add any burden to
> it at all.  I do like eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many
> bugs if I have to stop doing that. :/

This last sentence sums it up well.

There's been quite some internal discussion about the license change,
which is not a lightly attempted and achieved endeavour, and the
discussion is still continuing. There seems to be some public anger at
such a license change, but it is misdirected. Be angry for us, not at
us. We care deeply about BIND's users, the DNS and DNS users in general
(if you have any doubt about that, look at communication with ISC staff,
even if it is with a member of staff from a company that's shipping a
closed fork of BIND, or even another DNS implementation).

In reality, the world is not perfect as we expect it to be, or we would
not have to attempt this license change. It is a means to an end, for
the goal that we most care about which is to make BIND and the DNS
better and have BIND available to everyone to use, modify.

Your anger is misdirected when you say things like "kicking all BSD
distributions in the teeth". That's not what we're thinking of.

(also speaking for myself, not ISC.)

Mukund


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Evan Hunt]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:06:55PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea of
> relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the GPL, I
> think software creators should be able to share their work on whatever
> terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my stuff away with as few
> encumbrances as possible.  It's disappointing to me to add any burden to
> it at all.  I do like eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many
> bugs if I have to stop doing that. :/

(In case it wasn't absolutely clear, I don't speak for ISC; the above
is purely me.)

-- 
Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Evan Hunt]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:38:14PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> In reality, there IS no "middle ground"   If you truly believe a
> piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes the
> idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.

Thank you for the explanation.

As I undesrtand it, commercial entities *will* be able to use BIND as they
see fit, even if the relicensing goes ahead.  Share bug fixes back, or get
a support contract, and we're good.  We really just want everybody to be a
mensch about it.

On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea of
relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the GPL, I
think software creators should be able to share their work on whatever
terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my stuff away with as few
encumbrances as possible.  It's disappointing to me to add any burden to
it at all.  I do like eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many
bugs if I have to stop doing that. :/

-- 
Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

It seems some on the list are short on philosophy?  Well here is
the actual philosophy and I'll apologize in advance that it won't fit
in a SMS message for those people unable to have deep thoughts more
complex than a SMS message.   Hopefully you are not one of them.

You are asking about GPL but ISC didn't say they wanted to use GPL they 
said MPL, but I will frame my explanation in GPL terms since it is quite 
clear that you are coming from "all the world's a GPL" perspective.


"free" means free as in free beer.  RMS has done a lot of damage
over the years warping the idea of free software to fit his agenda
and that should have become obvious after GPL v3.  (and indeed it
HAS become obvious to a great many people)

Nevertheless the damage has been done, even though licenses like
Mozilla MPL try to retreat from the militancy of RMS to "strike a
middle ground"

In reality, there IS no "middle ground"   If you truly believe a
piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes the
idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.  Some of
those uses may irritate you or disgust you but they have to be allowed
or it is NOT free.  Imagine for example if the people who invented 
photography had insisted that it only be used to "take nice pleasant 
pictures"


Otherwise you are simply subscribing to the RMS's idea of "free" as
in "free like I say so in GPL" without even realizing it.   The argument
is lost before it is even made because you, Keith Christian, have
unconsciously already accepted a definition of "free" that is NOWHERE
in the dictionary and have unconsciously accepted RMS's redefinition
of the word "free" in software to mean "free except for this and that 
and this and that".


People read books like 1984 and think "no way that could happen" but 
here it is, it's already happened and you don't even see it.


Now, I get that damage can be done by certain jerks out there who take
BIND code, modify it so it is not compatible with other BIND, then 
release it into the wild as "BIND with the bugs removed" or whatever 
other odious name they can dream up.   I get that certain large 
commercial orgs who are making more money in 5 seconds than I'll ever

see in my lifetime due to BIND code should be helping out the hand that
feeds them.  And I also get that a bunch of RMS apologists out there
are trying to remove the word "free" from free software because they
are feeling guilty about their Orwellian tactics which have apparently
succeeded with a lot of software developers who should be intelligent
enough to know they are being played.

But, there are other ways than changing the license so you can make 
legal threats against those jerks to protect your software.   For 
starters, public shaming works pretty damn well - and as a benefit it 
helps out countless of admins out there making product decisions of what 
to purchase, when ISC makes a public statement saying "brandX included 
BIND code but they are lying like dogs when they say their stuff is 
compatible with BIND"   or "BrandY has made 100 million bucks off our 
stuff and never given us a nickle let alone kicked any code back"


If ISC's sole purpose to move to Mozilla is to "protect the purity and
integrity of BIND" or whatever whitewash, and their intent is to do it
by applying a license then using legal threats behind closed doors to
the commercial offenders out there who are screwing up their stuff, they
are simply allowing those offenders to continue to make money by
hoodwinking the public with their products, because while all this is
happening behind closed doors, the public is still buying the stuff. 
Worse, because ISC is following the "get the lawyers in a smoke-filled

room to cut a deal" route, for all we know ISC is signing off on
permitting BrandX to continue to contaminate the DNS system with their 
recompiled version of BIND that is non-standard, in exchange for filthy
lucre and a promise to fix it in the next Windows Service Pack (oops, 
did I say that?)


Licenses are licenses and people can write up whatever license they 
want.  My objection is this continued Orwellian GPL BS of claiming you

are making software free by restricting it.  And a lot of other
people agree or ISC would just stick it under GPL instead of MPL.   The 
sad part is that the entire discussion has been moved to use terms that

GPL people have redefined, and as a result a superficial discussion
or comment (like has been thrown up so far on this) always ends up
with GPL or GPL-approach licenses (like MPL) winning the discussion.

There is a famous line used to illustrate how redefining terms can
always cause one side to win, it is "have you stopped beating your
wife yet"  That is what has gone on in free software licensing with GPL 
and it's just a shame to see so many people sign off on that with

thunderous applause without even realizing what has been taken from them.


Ted




On 6/14/2016 11:48 AM, Keith Christian wrote:

(Sorry if 

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Keith Christian]

(Sorry if this ends up on the list twice, did not send to "bind-users"
the first time.)

Is there any reason not to use a GPL license, which requires that
changes be shared back with the user community?

Keith
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Mukund Sivaraman]

Hi Evan

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:45:59PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:
> May I ask you to expand on why the MPL is a problem?  So far the distros
> have all been supportive.

The BSD camp dislikes copyleft because copyleft prevents exactly what
we're trying to stop: the ability to ship a closed-source forked version
of BIND. They think that software is more free if that is allowed,
although they'd like all software to be free.

The GNU/FSF camp's view is different. In its view, a software is more
free if its freedom is protected and cannot be lost; hence the copyleft
clauses.

To a user of BIND, it makes no difference. To a restributor of BIND who
keeps the modified code free, it makes no difference. Those who are hurt
by it are those who are shipping closed-source modified versions, or
those who'd like to let others continue to do so.

Mukund


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[pgndev]

> If that doesn't explain it, then you are just looking to
> argue license religion and justify a choice you already made,

Or, we're just left scratching our heads wondering what the ranting is about.

Seems like there are lots on this list who practice no such religion,
and actually find this one of the more reasoned communications about
license changes.

And, TBH, would've been even interested in reasoned, legitimate
commentary from you.

> and I can't help you with that.

Clear enough. Back to reasonable discussion.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 6/14/2016 10:45 AM, Evan Hunt wrote:

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:10:16AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

I disagree with this but who am I to stand in the way of the goddam
almighty dollar, you're going to do it anyway regardless of what anyone
says, this comment thing is just window dressing.

I would request that you consider doing one thing before kicking all
the BSD distributions in the teeth, and that is to at least publish
an End-Of-Patch-Release date for BIND 9.10 so that people running
those distros know how much time they have to get it unbundled - and
make sure the patches to the older version don't "accidentally"
fall under the new license.


May I ask you to expand on why the MPL is a problem?


As I said already, the reason why is because it's a goddam shame that 
some commercial a-holes out there have to spoil it for everyone by not 
kicking back a few bucks of their ill-gotten gains to you guys.  (ISC)


That's why.   If that doesn't explain it, then you are just looking to 
argue license religion and justify a choice you already made, and I 
can't help you with that.


Ted
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[bert hubert]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 08:57:02PM +, P Vixie wrote:
> This is long overdue. I'm all for it. Vixie

For what it is worth, as open source fellow travellers we discussed this
earlier both with Vicky and Paul, and we are in strong agreement with this
measure to increase the sustainability of great open source development.


Bert
On behalf of PowerDNS

> 
> On June 13, 2016 10:52:15 PM GMT+02:00, Victoria Risk  wrote:
> >Hello BIND users-
> >
> >ISC published BIND under a very permissive open source license
> >
> >(https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/
> >)
> >nearly two decades ago.  ISC is the organizational steward for BIND; in
> >order to preserve the software for the long term, we are considering a
> >move to the more restrictive Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0)
> >
> >(https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/
> >).
> >
> >The MPL license requires that anyone redistributing the code who has
> >changed it must publish their changes (or pay for an exception to the
> >license). It doesn’t impact anyone who is using the software without
> >redistributing it, nor anyone redistributing it without changes – so
> >most users will not see any change. 
> >
> >In the event we do proceed with the change in license, we will announce
> >this with the 9.11.0 beta and it will take effect with the BIND 9.11.0
> >release.
> >
> >We welcome comments from BIND users, including statements of support or
> >concern.  Email Vicky Risk, Product Manager at vi...@isc.org
> > if you want to discuss privately, Tweet at us at
> >@ISCdotORG , or discuss on
> >bind-users@lists.isc.org.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Vicky Risk, 
> >Product Manager
> >
> >Jeff Osborn, President of ISC, announcing we are considering this
> >change at RIPE72 in Copenhagen May 26th,
> >https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/206
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >___
> >bind-announce mailing list
> >bind-annou...@lists.isc.org
> >https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-announce
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

> ___
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
> from this list
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Evan Hunt]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:10:16AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I disagree with this but who am I to stand in the way of the goddam 
> almighty dollar, you're going to do it anyway regardless of what anyone 
> says, this comment thing is just window dressing.
> 
> I would request that you consider doing one thing before kicking all
> the BSD distributions in the teeth, and that is to at least publish
> an End-Of-Patch-Release date for BIND 9.10 so that people running
> those distros know how much time they have to get it unbundled - and
> make sure the patches to the older version don't "accidentally"
> fall under the new license.

May I ask you to expand on why the MPL is a problem?  So far the distros
have all been supportive.

The ISC license (which is very slightly modified BSD) is less encumbered
than the MPL, in the sense that people are allowed to commercialize a
closed-source version of the code without giving anything back to the
project, whereas the MPL would require such people to contribute - either
financially or by submitting patches.  From an end-user perspective, I'm
not sure how it makes a difference.  Even from a commercial perspective,
the additional burden shouldn't be huge.  Is there a problem we're not
seeing?  If so, please elaborate so the concern can be addressed.

> I know it would be too much to ask that the resolver library at least
> stay under BSD license so I won't even bother.

If you mean libresolv, that's not part of BIND any longer. The
version that was formerly maintained by ISC is now part of the NetBSD
project, I believe.

> It's a goddam shame that some commercial a-holes out there have to spoil 
> it for everyone by not kicking back a few bucks of their
> ill-gotten gains to you guys.  All I can say is once you have your
> shiny new license I'm going to be mighty POed if you don't sue
> the pants off the next one of those companies that uses the BIND code
> and effs it up to make an example for the rest of them.   BIND but 
> without the bugs, indeed!   What rot.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

I disagree with this but who am I to stand in the way of the goddam 
almighty dollar, you're going to do it anyway regardless of what anyone 
says, this comment thing is just window dressing.


I would request that you consider doing one thing before kicking all
the BSD distributions in the teeth, and that is to at least publish
an End-Of-Patch-Release date for BIND 9.10 so that people running
those distros know how much time they have to get it unbundled - and
make sure the patches to the older version don't "accidentally"
fall under the new license.

I know it would be too much to ask that the resolver library at least
stay under BSD license so I won't even bother.

It's a goddam shame that some commercial a-holes out there have to spoil 
it for everyone by not kicking back a few bucks of their

ill-gotten gains to you guys.  All I can say is once you have your
shiny new license I'm going to be mighty POed if you don't sue
the pants off the next one of those companies that uses the BIND code
and effs it up to make an example for the rest of them.   BIND but 
without the bugs, indeed!   What rot.


That's why we can't have nice things.

Ted


On 6/13/2016 1:52 PM, Victoria Risk wrote:

Hello BIND users-

ISC published BIND under a very permissive open source license

(https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/)
nearly two decades ago. ISC is the organizational steward for BIND; in
order to preserve the software for the long term, we are considering a
move to the more restrictive Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0)

(https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/).

The MPL license requires that anyone redistributing the code who has
changed it must publish their changes (or pay for an exception to the
license). It doesn’t impact anyone who is using the software without
redistributing it, nor anyone redistributing it without changes – so
most users will not see any change.

In the event we do proceed with the change in license, we will announce
this with the 9.11.0 beta and it will take effect with the BIND 9.11.0
release.

We welcome comments from BIND users, including statements of support or
concern. Email Vicky Risk, Product Manager at vi...@isc.org if you want
to discuss privately, Tweet at us at @ISCdotORG
, or discuss on bind-users@lists.isc.org
.

Regards,

Vicky Risk,
Product Manager

Jeff Osborn, President of ISC, announcing we are considering this change
at RIPE72 in Copenhagen May 26th,
https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/206.







___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

RE: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[John W. Blue]

>This change will not automatically ensure that commercial vendors modifying 
>BIND will support ISC, but it will at least communicate that this would be 
>appropriate.

This.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

[Victoria Risk]

> 
> What are the underlying reasons for wanting to make this change?

Hi Lars,

As you know, ISC is a non-profit. Our funding comes from software support 
contracts and small donations from users. We like this model because our 
funding is aligned with what we see as doing our core job.  

As people opt for versions of BIND from commercial vendors, we lose them as 
potential support customers, so the pool of people supporting the core project 
shrinks.  A few commercial vendors do have software support contracts with ISC, 
which helps, but others neither share their fixes with us nor help support us.  
Some of them even market their applications as “BIND, but without the bugs”, 
and seem not to realize what is wrong with this.  (One commercial vendor told 
us they would not consider contributing patches because those would help their 
competitors.)  It seems unfair to those who do support ISC, many of whom are 
not large or rich organizations themselves, to allow others to profit off of 
commercializing the open source without sharing anything.  

We can’t ignore this because it is a trend.  Fewer people are willing and able 
to build from source, perhaps some people prefer graphical tools, and many 
people with larger installations need management tools and security add-ons 
that commercial vendors provide. We don’t want to deny anyone these things, but 
if those applications are built on top of our open source, we want to encourage 
their vendors to support the core projects.

BIND has been free in every sense for a very long time. During this time, the 
open source world has evolved.  We no longer need a permissive license in order 
to encourage reuse of BIND, we need a community-oriented license to encourage 
contributions to the open source.   This change will not automatically ensure 
that commercial vendors modifying BIND will support ISC, but it will at least 
communicate that this would be appropriate. 

Vicky
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users