Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]
-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]
-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 [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]
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 wrote: Mhh.. I don't remember... Yes, actually we had (and I did also do some reply.. 0_0) http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2003-05/threads.html#01639 ...but that was on QMail, which has Information for distributors at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html, while no similiar page does seem to be linked from DJBDNS page http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html 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
