Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

[Lapo Luchini]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Oct 6 11:20, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>
>> I guess an email to DJB could clarify it a bit...
>
> It's essential to do this. A source code with no copyright or
> licensing information at all is highly lawless ground. Dunno about
> other countries but in Germany a source code is not just public
> domain because the author didn't add a copyright notice. On the
> contrary.

I guess I will actualyl send the email, out of curiosity if not for
any other reason...

Well actually I guess i found the correct page (it talks about djbdns
excplicitly), and it falls under the hat of the generic "DJB license":
feel free to download and do whatever you like, but you may distribute
binary "only if".
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html

In the specific:

> You may distribute a precompiled package if
>
> * installing your package produces /exactly/ the same files, in
>   exactly the same locations, that a user would obtain by
>   installing one of my packages listed above;
> * your package behaves correctly, i.e., the same way as normal
>   installations of my package on all other systems; and
> * your package's creator warrants that he has made a good-faith
>   attempt to ensure that your package behaves correctly.
>
> All installations must work the same way; any variation is a bug. If
> there's something about a system (compiler, libraries, kernel,
> hardware, whatever) that changes the behavior of my package, then that
> platform is /not/ supported, and you are /not/ permitted to distribute
> binaries for it.
>
> You may distribute an operating system that includes a precompiled
> package under the same rules.

Lapo

- --
Lapo Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkFmTsoACgkQaJiCLMjyUvtb+ACeKUA7lqFuK5sj74HhAtqiY63y
Z08An2WfksxXFbZ42faNJKfraBSB+54r
=zi9v
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Oct  6 11:20, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Brian Dessent wrote:
> > Still, I doubt it qualifies as OSI-approved by any stretch of the
> > imagination.
> 
> It doesn't even have a copyright notice in the source nor in the
> package, maybe it qualifies as Public Domani, but I guess an email to
> DJB could clarify it a bit...

It's essential to do this.  A source code with no copyright or licensing
information at all is highly lawless ground.  Dunno about other countries
but in Germany a source code is not just public domain because the author
didn't add a copyright notice.  On the contrary.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.

Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

[Lapo Luchini]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Brian Dessent wrote:
> Still, I doubt it qualifies as OSI-approved by any stretch of the
> imagination.

It doesn't even have a copyright notice in the source nor in the
package, maybe it qualifies as Public Domani, but I guess an email to
DJB could clarify it a bit...

> It works well, even has a nifty installer that installs it as a
> service.  The command line binaries (host, dig, rndc, etc) all play nice
> under Cygwin too.  I'm not really a fan of BIND's design and config
> format but the win32 port works well.

I see.

> Of course, I'd rather see a Cygwin-based resolver + net tools.

That was my idea, too.

> Apparently someone convinced them
> that it was indeed possible to run a resolver on localhost, and in XP
> the dialog does not appear.

Ahah, don't they even SELL a DNS resolver itself? 0=)

- --
L a p o   L u c h i n i
l a p o @ l a p o . i t
w w w . l a p o . i t /
http://www.megatokyo.it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkFjrAcACgkQaJiCLMjyUvvl3ACfWxcnAepsgo+B2HtmkIyBEZql
Kl0AnRSTFkbNGfOr5u+wzmhYnJv0Wwp3
=cikm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: DJB licensing issues

[Gerrit P. Haase]

Hello Brian,


>>> (As for a local resolver, I use the win32 BIND9.)

>> Works well? I don't like BIND very much, but I could use it as a
>> fall-back in case I can't get dnscache to work...

> It works well, even has a nifty installer that installs it as a
> service.  The command line binaries (host, dig, rndc, etc) all play nice
> under Cygwin too.  I'm not really a fan of BIND's design and config
> format but the win32 port works well.  Of course, I'd rather see a
> Cygwin-based resolver + net tools.

Please test: http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/DNS/bind-9.2.2/


Gerrit
-- 
=^..^=

Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

[Brian Dessent]

Lapo Luchini wrote:

> Mhh.. I don't remember...
> Yes, actually we had (and I did also do some reply.. 0_0)
> 
> 
> ...but that was on QMail, which has "Information for distributors" at
> , while no similiar page does seem to
> be linked from DJBDNS page 

Still, I doubt it qualifies as OSI-approved by any stretch of the
imagination.

> > (As for a local resolver, I use the win32 BIND9.)
> 
> Works well? I don't like BIND very much, but I could use it as a
> fall-back in case I can't get dnscache to work...

It works well, even has a nifty installer that installs it as a
service.  The command line binaries (host, dig, rndc, etc) all play nice
under Cygwin too.  I'm not really a fan of BIND's design and config
format but the win32 port works well.  Of course, I'd rather see a
Cygwin-based resolver + net tools.

Interesting tidbit: In win2k if you tried to enter 127.0.0.1 for the
resolver in the network settings GUI it would kindly tell you that this
was an invalid value and to contact your ISP or whatever.  I had to set
the value directly in the registry.  Apparently someone convinced them
that it was indeed possible to run a resolver on localhost, and in XP
the dialog does not appear.

Brian