> You have repeatedly, on your dns@ list, advised people to just
> download the source from your sites and install it by your directions
> (which ARE rather straight forward and trivial), not use ports, RPMs,
> etc. NOW you gripe about the OpenBSD team FOLLOWING your wishes and
> removing what you would probably have termed an "unauthorized port".
> This is most curious.
Ie. OpenBSD is being nice.
> You have repeatedly stated your belief in the nonsense of license
> agreements, and some indirect talks with a friend of mine who is a
> professor (and lawyer) of intelectual property law indicates you are
> probably correct (however, determining for "sure" will probably take a
> lot of lawyers, a lot of money, and a Supreme Court decision).
> HOWEVER, a license (sometimes) gives a clear statement of goals and
> desires of the author/publisher, this is very useful, even if not
> legally binding. Can the GPL be enforced? Who knows? (I don't place
> bets when lawyers are involved.) But it states what the AUTHOR
> wishes, and at least some people view this as a good thing to have and
> respect. The fact that what you have said about your distribution
> policies is contrary to the desires of the OpenBSD team reflects
> nothing bad on either your nor them.
ie. OpenBSD is being cautious.
> One thing I think many people are forgetting is OpenBSD is not a
> democracy. If the developers wish to exclude software from the
> 'ports' tree because they don't agree with (or are unclear on) some
> bit of the distribution philosophy, it is well within their rights to
> do so. If they wish to exclude software because the author slings
> childish names, that's their right, too. If they wish to exclude
> software because it does funny things to the otherwise internally
> (more-or-less) consistant file system layout, they can. IF they just
> wish to exclude it just because it is written by a certain individual,
> AGAIN, that is their right. It isn't for you to decide if your
> software goes into the OpenBSD ports package. It isn't for you to
> decide if Netscape does or does not fit the philosophy (that's between
> Netscape and OpenBSD).
Ie. OpenBSD is a culture you are wasting your time trying to enforce
a policy on.
> Anyone who disagrees with this is free to start their own BSD project,
> or even their own "OpenBSD ports" project. This is one of the nice
> things (in my eyes -- and I respect that others may reasonably
> disagree) about the BSD license.
Ie. djbnix.
> The decision has been made by the people who get to make that
> decision. It is a direct result of your actions, it was not
> abitrary. Take responsibility for your actions, don't blame others
> for the the consequences of them.
ie. It is over.
> Dan, I have great respect for your programs and your skill as a
> programmer and as an application engineer. DJBDNS is a fantastic
> product -- elegant in its simplicity, reliable, effective. I've been
> an active advocate of it up to this point. I'm not going to say
> "Well, you are unpleasant, therefore I'm going to switch to BIND" --
> that's idiotic logic and we all know it. However, it is unfortunate
> that the attitude you are expressing is so distructive to your own
> causes. A reasonable reaction would be to say "hey, I understand we
> have a difference in goals" -- there is no reason to take it as a
> personal attack.
ie. djb-love-fest held in Chicago next year, but Nick might not attend.
> I'd love to have a Dodge Viper, however the dealer isn't willing to
> give me one for a price I'm able/willing to pay, and I'm not ready to
> hand them the cash they want for one -- we don't agree on the terms of
> the license or distribution or whatever you want to call it. I'm not
> evil, the dealer isn't evil, we just have an irreconcilable
> difference, and I don't think either of us think poorly of the other
> because of it. Now, if they start trying to grab my money, or I start
> trying to grab their car, well, then we have a problem, but certainly
> not now.
ie. If you have a problem understanding all the connotations of the word
"free", move to Boston.
> The OpenBSD team did not remove your software from ports with any
> visable malice, and some off-list discussions with at least one
> important person indicates to me there was NO malice towards you in
> the decision, just a desire to respect your written wishes and goals
> AND the goals of the OpenBSD project, and not ask for compromises on
> the part of either party.
ie. We 100% respect your http://cr.yp.to/wishes, and you act like a
FUCKING ASSHOLE LOSER.
> I don't think you are going to loose ANY potential software users here
> because of being removed from OpenBSD's ports tree, and you may avoid
> loosing some. I can tell you if I just saw 'djbdns' in ports and
> installed it and found stuff splattered all over my root directory,
> I'd be very, very ticked off. The root directory is sacred to me,
> under all the OSs I work with -- I don't appreciate ANY application
> thinking they are so important as to think they have the right to hang
> anything off the root without my permission. Heck, as it was, I was
> pretty miffed when I found /package unexpectedly (just THOUGHT I
> didn't have to go back to the install guide because I'd done it a few
> times before. 8-)
ie. Hello, read-only /
> On the other hand, I fear you may well be loosing some potential users
> based on the attitude shown here. There is just no reason for it.
ie. Your loss. Bye bye.
|