Theo, thanks for the detailed explanation - that answers all my questions.
> And recent versions are completely non-Unixy in the way they
> mess with the system.
> To be quite honest, that is a royal pain in the ass.
> So, instead, please just go get the versions from his site.
As I said, I decided to use only "native" OpenBSD software for now. Until I
learn enough about Unix to write something like KLM, I will trust completely
OpenBSD developers and this mailing list.
Theo says that qmail is "pain in the ass" :) - no problem, I will start
learning something else.
> End of conversation, ok?
OK.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Theo de Raadt" <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
To: "Andrey Smagin" <asmagin@rapidds.com>
Cc: <ports@openbsd.org>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
> > I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped?
>
> Precisely because of what the commit message says:
>
> > "Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield
2001-08-14]"
>
> > But the license for qmail did not change and qmail was in the ports tree
> > before - so, what happened?
>
> That code has never been free.
>
> > Plus one more thing:
> > Quoting DJB's qmail license page :
> > "If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports,
no
> > matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval. This
does
> > not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your
e-mail
> > address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a
> > detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute."
>
> That's right. djb demands that we not ship modified versions without
> (basically) requiring approval each time we change something. And he
> is also strongly urging us to not change anything.
>
> What he is saying is that licences are granted on a discretionary and
> specific case-by-case basis.
>
> And recent versions are completely non-Unixy in the way they mess with
> the system.
>
> To be quite honest, that is a royal pain in the ass.
>
> So, instead, please just go get the versions from his site. We are
> not even going to bother shipping a scaffold that wraps it, since we
> have basically been told that we may not.
>
> > It does not sound like modifications are not permitted at all, he just
wants
> > to review them. May be he did not give his permission?
>
> Maybe we aren't going to bother each time we feel like making a change.
> So, we are going to stop making such changes.
>
> In fact, then we thought, why don't we just avoid the entire issue.
>
> > And it's not in the OpenBSD distribution itself - I thought ports have
less
> > license restrictions than base.
> > (In other words: Why is Netscape in the ports tree?)
>
> Because that software is under much simpler rules for distribution,
> and those rules apply to everyone, and are not on a case-by-case
> basis. It is much easier to follow those rules.
>
> > My last question: is it final decision, as with IPF or qmail might make
it
> > back to the ports sometime in the future?
>
> No, these things will not be coming back. If you have problems with
> the decisions we have made, please take them up with djb. We've
> thought this through long and hard. It is out of respect for djb's
> wishes that we have gone this route. If his licenses became more
> free, then perhaps we might change our mind, but what do you think the
> chances are of that?
>
> Again, take this up with djb, we feel that we have talked enough about
> it, since this has been a pain in the ass for years.
>
> End of conversation, ok?
>
>
|