Bdale Garbee quotes:
> The DNSsafe software cannot be used or distributed separately from the
> BIND software. You only have the right to use it or distribute it as a
> bundled, integrated product.
Non-free. DFSG section 3.
> The DNSsafe software can ONLY be used to provide authentication for
Bdale Garbee writes:
> I fail to see how this restricts distribution of modified versions of
> BIND in any way.
Among other things, it forbids distribution of versions of BIND that have
been modified by having all the DNS stuff removed and replaced with
something else entirely.
> But again, I don
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It also looks like it could have to go into non-us. Do the US
export restrictions cover software that is merely able to verify
cryptographic signatures?
Not AFAIK. md5sum, for instance, is in main.
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes:
> You must not violate United States export control laws by distributing
> the DNSsafe software or information about it, when such distribution
> is prohibited by law.
It also looks like it could have to go into non-us. Do the US
export restrictions cover
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> It means that someone else can't "borrow" the DNSsafe library from BIND
> without negotiating a different license with RSA. However, I fail to see
> how this restricts distribution of modified versions of BIND in any way.
it does: removing everythi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bdale Garbee) writes:
> >> The DNSsafe software cannot be used or distributed separately from the
> >> BIND software. You only have the right to use it or distribute it as
> >> a bundled, integrated product.
> Which section of the DFSG does this violate?
3. Derived Works
T
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 11:40:37AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> >
> > This is unfriendly to the free software community at large, to the
> > extent that someone might want to use the DNSsafe code for some non-DNS
> > purpose which th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> That might make BIND free in DFSG sense but relying anything non-free
> (which DNSsafe is) would put BIND into contrib in the Debian sense
> (non-free if you can't seperate BIND from DNSsafe).
I'm just getting started studying the 8.2 sources, but I see
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> >> The DNSsafe software cannot be used or distributed separately from the
> >> BIND software. You only have the right to use it or distribute it as
> >> a bundled, integrated product.
>
> Which section of the DFSG does this violate?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I'm afraid this is definitely non-free. It forbids distribution of
> modified versions on several counts:
Be patient with me. I don't see the problem, at least not yet. I wouldn't
have brought the license to debian-legal if I thought it were beyond qu
I'm afraid this is definitely non-free. It forbids distribution of
modified versions on several counts:
> The DNSsafe software cannot be used or distributed separately from the
> BIND software. You only have the right to use it or distribute it as
> a bundled, integrated product.
>
> The DNSsafe
e with
the DFSG before I upload BIND 8.2 packages to main.
Bdale
DNSSAFE LICENSE TERMS
This BIND software includes the DNSsafe software from RSA Data
Security, Inc., which is copyrighted software that can only be
distributed under the terms of this license agreement.
The D
12 matches
Mail list logo
