Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD Removes qmail and djbdns From Ports Tree
KingArtr writes: "qmail and djbdns have been dropped from the OpenBSD ports tree. According to the message from Theo de Raadt at the OpenBSD Ports Archive its because the license does not permit modification.". Update by nik: Note that NetBSD and FreeBSD continue to include qmail in their ports trees. DJB's license forbids redistribution of modified binaries, but does not forbid distribution of a 'framework' for modifying the source code.
He is the EXACT reason why I won't run Open BSD on my systems (I will admit that I use OpenSSH though).
The old addage of you can catch more flies with honey than vinigar needs to be tought to Theo.
If he TRULY wants to have people using his OS, then he needs to take a chill pill and STOP ACTING CHILDISH...
UPS Sucks
Theo at it again...*but*! that's what makes OBSD unique...(in an odd "it's my ball, so i'm taking it and going home" kinda way).
:-)
I'd suspect that given a few more years of this, the only thing OBSD will have installed is anything made by the OBSD team, and emacs (which will be the shell, editor, mail prog, etc).
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archive/openbsd- ports/200108/threads.html#00462
Go read the thread and maybe you will change your mind who is blowing their stack. Theo did nothing of the sort.
Umm.. If the license hasn't changed, You KNOW that DJB is quite aware of it (Hell.. He changed the license so that you COULD distribute a binary version of it.. )
What has changed is that Theo desides to get a bug up his ass again..
I'm trying to figure out what he would make now, openqmail ?
He gets mad about someone developer not licking his ass, drops their software from the OpenBSD distribution and forces all the users to build and install it from source.
Secure OS ? Comeon.. What does he install instead of qmail, Sendmail ? Thats about as secure as the lock on Madonna's chastity belt..
UPS Sucks
So that is why you don't run OpenBSD ? Because you don't like Theo, and agree that he is a knee-jerk acting like a two years old.
Then you say he needs to take a chill pill and STOP ACTING CHILDISH.
Lokks like it would do some good to you too.
Everything I do w/ OpenBSD beyond the base install (which gets rebuilt as well every so often) gets built from source. I think it is convenient for some that a package be available for people who find this annoying.
One of the best things about the BSD's is the presumed ability to do whatever you want with the software. If I want to build a set top box to sell to people, I can hack up everything and not have to worry about licensing issues (beside proudly giving credit where it is due)
All of this is due to the licensing issues that bit them in the behind WRT ipf. I am glad they are doing this as it will relieve alot of potential headaches for everybody. This project has gotten several packages relicensed to a more free license, so that is a net gain. This does not make it onto slashdot, though.
I don't believe that software is free unless you are free to do whatever you want with it. That is the bottom line, IMHO.
You do realize that there are other things out there beside Sendmail and qmail, right? Postfix is just as good, if not better than qmail and it does not have a horrible license, that requires someone to make sure its ok to release a patch every time they do so. Its not going to hurt you if qmail and djbdns arent in the ports tree, now is it?
Theo's the instigator and the one calling names. Dan is not completely innocent either, but Theo (as usual) could have definitely handled the licensing issue better. Something along the lines of "Hey Dan, I was looking over your licensing for qmail and djbdns, and I'm concerned that we may inadvertently be breaking it," and then working from there. Even if Dan had ended up saying "no, don't change my paths" at least there would have been a good faith effort to work together. Did Theo even bother to ask for clarification or get in contact with Dan before pulling DJB programs out of ports?
NetBSD: the cathedral vs the bizzare.
I applaud Theo's decision, even if it does
happen to piss a few people off;
maybe now DJB will realize how much his
licensing ideas suck, and change them.
If you dont like OpenBSD's decision to
remove it from its ports tree maybe you
shouldn't use it, especially if you get
pissed over such a small thing.
So Theo tries to go through a "license audit" notices that qmail and djbdns have licenses that conflict with the OBSD "way" and after emailing djb, pulls them out of the ports tree. All the world is harmonious for a moment, then WHAM! everybody has an opinion, jumps in, flames and counter-flames, name-calling, and on. I'll keep using OBSD for my critical stuff, just like I have for the last 3 years. I have all the releases on CD, and keep buying them to keep it coming.
What is so interesting is the amount of energy expended over a non-issue. Of course slashdotters will weigh in with their opinions which count for nothing, since they have neither coded or used OpenBSD. I had a RedHat Linux rooted before the company firewall, now my @home cable modem is firewalled by a stock OBSD, and it just keeps running.
In case you think I pontificate, I use OBSD to run a 10,000 host domain, with an OC-3 to the Internet which sees probes/scans every day. Code Red II probes at about 1000 per minute.
Do you ever notice that most of the BSD posts are centered around "personality" issues. In all the time I have had OBSD servers, I have never had one offend me, but then again, how can an inanimate object evoke emotions?
[SYS-MSG]an iceberg was just dectected near Antartica
Looks like djb doesn't want to play by Theo's rules. No matter, that's his choice. But Theo chose what he wanted for OpenBSD a long time ago, and if djb doesn't like that, then that's his problem. Personally, I agree with Theo on many points: /usr/ports should stick to /usr/local for where they write stuff (I've never liked the whole damn /opt idea that Solaris popularized), and for pity's sake, anyone that thinks their software is important enough that it needs its own directory off / needs a serious ego-deflating! For all that people critisize RMS and his ego, all of the GNU tools are very well-behaved in that department. Would that others were equally as nice.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
You don't have to be Dionne Warwick to see that this little boy is dying. Due to large amounts of crap flooding, abysmal grades, and so on, everyone has turned against this young Windows user. If Haydur is to stay alive at all, it will be in the dreams of mackga, the sporks, and the ascii crap flooder. For all practical purposes, this kiddie is already dead.
I am glad something as good as postfix is available Free. I had a pretty good experience with it under trying circumstances.
I don't know of a good alternative to djbdns, though. I'm sticking with the OpenBSD bind 4.
(Someone DID read the FAQ!)
It kept killing my processes. Something about using 'too much' process time.
Bah! If I want process time, I want process time!!!
One of the reasons I love *BSDs so much is the strict file system layout - /usr/local. Dan suggested /var/qmail which is more than appropriate than /usr/local/qmail. I hate weird directory under /usr/local!
/usr/local which pissed Dan off. But hey, take a look at /usr/ports/mail/qmail on FreeBSD, that defaults to /var/qmail. Should FreeBSD follows the package rules too? There are quite a few ports violate the policy.
That whole thread was all about changing the default PREFIX to
While OpenBSD had dropped qmail, ironically, NetBSD has finally adopted qmail into its ports tree (/usr/pkgsrc) couple weeks ago.
Why must Theo be a jerk all the time? I am also a user of OpenBSD but I am on Dan's side all the way.
--
freebsd
I just read that mailing list thread and got quite a chuckle out of it.
It's always amusing to watch two egomaniacs duel it out. I'd have to say Theo won this argument though, DJB came out looking like a real ass.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
this was taken out quite a while ago and it's really pointless. download the tarball, unpack, and install. you don't need it in ports tree to install it.
>He is the EXACT reason why I won't run Open BSD >on my systems (I will admit that I use OpenSSH >though).
So in what way does he affect your computers?
You still can DL and install bernstein stuff.
>The old addage of you can catch more flies with >honey than vinigar needs to be tought to Theo.
Actually, he is following the wishes of the
license. The license says "dont redist" and he
doesn't. Why does Dan get upset for someone
following his wishes?
>If he TRULY wants to have people using his OS, >then he needs to take a chill pill and STOP >ACTING CHILDISH
Actually, I can't think that you will find such
a reference. You most probablt will find only
texts saying "OpenBSD is free for all", rather
than "OpenBSD should be used by all".
-- I'm as unique as everyone else.
If you read the thread you will see Dan calling Theo a hypocrite before Theo laid in on him. After that it did get nasty. But DJB said :
/usr/local/).
"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."
And the OBSD people did not want to deal with having to get approval for every mod they made to the port. They also did not like the fact that DJB insisted on sticking things in (what they considered) non-standard locations (/usr/ instead of
In all I think that Theo was right, and Dan's requirements were ridiculous. Anyway, this is not that big of a deal. If you want the software you can still download and install it. You just won't get a precompiled package. And when you build it you can fix the install script so that it puts things in the right place, instead of the defaults which are all wrong.
The funny part about the mail achive is that Theo's words imply they have put some deep thought into removing the qmail port. The funnny part is that he could have at least asked the author of qmail to change his license. Granted Theo doesn't really have time to influence/argure every developer into using a more open stance on modification, redistribution, and a general warm-fuzzy license.
However, if you read this link over on the OpenBSD journal website, you will find that Theo et'all have been working with other authors of software in the ports tree, and have actually got the Xerox people to change their license. This indicates that Theo didn't bother to approch The author of qmail. Also Theo implied in his writings that he doesn't intend to ever let the qmail software back into the ports tree.
This should serve as a warning to all developers that OpenBSD only advocates free software, and to a greater extent will not tolerate any software that claims to be distributed as "free-software". In other words, don't call your software "free", unless it really is free in the true meaning of the word. Free by trial is not free, free by default is what is required.
This issue only server to widen the divid between the BSD style license folks, and the GNU style folks. This is the true battle being waged. It is the people in the grey area thhat are the first victems of Theo's little moral clash. Rather, the people who have a custom license that is neither BSD style, or GNU.
I'll admit that I used to be a punk, with a mowhawk and a very rebel outlook on the world. The true essence of a punk is to have the "fuck it" attitude towards life. In other words, the solution to most problems faced by a punk is quickly solved by the phrase: "fuck it", and the issues is solved, nice and neat. I've detected this essence in Theo's stance on this touchy subject. It is obvious Theo knew this was gonna cause dramma, but he doens't care. He is intelligent enough argue his stance in a way that is difficult to opose.
The bigest issue that these developers have is that Theo simply, and randomly, droppes software from his OS without first consulting the software authors. The authors at first seem upset that Theo is so harsh, and does't give them a chance to change the license, or at least argure that their license does in fact let OpenBSD use it. Either way, Theo does't really care to talk about either subjects since he knows he isn't an idot, and can read the licensed that these developers so carefully write. In effect, if Theo drops your software from his ports tree, your software must not be free in the first place, and too bad it snuck in there to begin with or it wouldn't have been yank'd out. And just because the FreeBSD camp doesn't remove the ports doens't mean anything. The FreeBSD folks do not hold claim of ownership over the ports tree. In other words, the FreeBSD ports tree is not really considered part of FreeBSD proper. The FreeBSD CD-ROM doesn't distribute any packages that have a restrictive license. So when you install FreeBSD, the ports come after the base system has been installed, and the ports tree itself is regarded as not part of the OS. The people who maintain the ports function seperatly from the folks who are core the the OS. Another difference is the fact that FreeBSD will remove a port when and if the developer request it be removed. This is different than OpenBSD's more proactive stance.
In the End, it is this reason why I use OpenBSD, and FreeBSD instead of Finux. I think that Theo is a champion of software-liberty in this very touchy stage of human evolution. I liken him to a Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin of software development. Theo's stance, and attitude is like a constitution of good form, graces in way of enlightend software.
One last point I'd like to make regarding comments I see about Theo's ego. First off, dont' confuse his perfection'ism with his ego. There is a difference in being a perfectionist, and an ego-maniac. Theo does not try to force people to appeance "open" to the begining of software that uses a open license, unlike a certain somebody in the Free Software Foundation. You do not hear developers of free software complain about Theo tring to take-over their projects behind their backs as your favorit person from the FSF recently did with GCC.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Theo and the rest of the OpenBSD have been performing a licence audit of OpenBSD, as part of the fall-out of Darren Reed changing (sorry, "clarifying" *cough*) the IPFilters licence. This is a responsible thing to do, given that many third parties redistribute OpenBSD.
In most cases where a licence collision has been found, the licencer has agreed to changes, or the OpenBSD team have been able to make simple substitutions. In this case, the licencers have stuck by their guns. Not surprisingly, the OpenBSD team have opted to stay out of the compound, rather than risk being shot at.
Theo gets a lot of stick largely because he has a reputation for being abrasive, not least because of the whole reason why OpenBSD was created in the first place. However, if a licencer puts out a licence for a piece of software demanding that nobody make changes to it, or in Darren Reed's case, pretends that his licence, which previously granted a blanket right to use and redistribute, always had such a no-modify clause, then what do you think the responsible thing for the OpenBSD team to do is?
If developers want to have their code in OpenBSD, which they have every right not to want, then it is they who need to bend. Theo, and the rest of the OpenBSD team, is quite right to demand that the only code present in OpenBSD be modifyable by both the OpenBSD team and by end users. That's not childish. That's commonsense, and that's legally the only responsible position to take.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You're obviously a trolling Linux bigot but I'll bite anyway.
BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test
Yawn ... another lame statistic. What was that about lies, damn lies ... most Unix users can find their way around BSD (even if they haven't tried it yet) simply because Berkeley's offspring has had such a massive influence.
Or perhaps Usenet postings are a lame way of calculating usgae. Unlike Linux, where many Unix newbies cut their teeth, and consequently post slews of Linux related Usenet questions, most NetBSD and OpenBSD users *know* what thy're doing. This doesn't mean that Linux is a less admirable operating system, just that there's more newbies out there using Linux.
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS
Bullshit. BSDI finally saw that selling an operating system with source code was a little pointless when three freelly avaliable alternatives existed. The high quality of these alternatives was more easily ascertainable than with BSDI's own product, so they decided on the sensible course of merging with FreeBSD. So arguing that BSDI faced an uncertain future is reasonably valid, but your other inferences are rubbish. And FreeBSD is not and never has been a business. Loser.
If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers
Much like the cutting edge of Linux development will. Companies like RedHat may employ Alan Cox, etc. but the loss of such positions wouldn't undermine their enthusiasm to develop.
Now get back under the bridge troll.
Chris
Chris, dude.
/. staff. Had this been an anti-linux or anti-slashdot post, the staff would have shut this bozo down YEARS ago. But, OSDN cares only if the OS is Linux, not BSD.
Back in the BAD ol days....b4 Rush was remarried (again) and didn't even have a TV show, he hyped Compuserve.
One rabid fan transcribed the show and posted it to usenet. Well, one day "Rush" showed up and posted about mass slaughter of Buffalo by indians. So, I asked him to post his sources. He kept re-posting the same article...no sources.
Eventually, he went on the radio show and called internet users Nimbrods. (YES! Rush called me a nimbrod!!!)
This wanna-be is the same. When facts are posted to refute the post, he just reposts the same crap over and over.
So, don't expect a meaningful response from the troll. Or, any support from the
You have been trolled more than you think. What our friend here is doing is using Usenet posts to work out the ratios between the BSDs, thus there are 5 times more Open posts than Net, and twice as many Net as BSDi, and that these three together are 20% of the market with Free making up the rest.
What you have ignored is the line
which is undeniably bollocks. If you were to check, you would see that in factThat is the beauty of this troll. Recalculate (and where you see those numbers multiplied by 4, use 5 to represent the 20% other + 80% freebsd), and you get a figure of between 1 and 2.5 million for all *BSD, which is far more credible.
One of Theo de Raadt's responses:
> Hypocrite.
>
> ---Dan
>
Why do you sign your email twice?
I love this man's one-liners...
So on the OpenBSD side, the developers get going on a OpenSSH implementation, and let anyone work on porting it to other systems. Result: an impressive list of operating systems now include a good, secure, free ssh implementation, making the world a better place.
DJB, on the other hand, wants a secure robust MTA and DNS, writes them, and refuses to let anyone take his stuff and add to it, but insists that it be his way. Result: less of the Internet is secure than could be, since there will always be multiple systems and everything will never homogenize into the same "right-way" system.
Conclusion: there can be no conclusion, this is SlashDot, stupid......
Just go to OpenBSD Journal and search for the thread called "License audit progress". Then you will find a nice list of programs which had incompatible license with their defined goals. He managed Wietse Wenema to change Tcpwrappers' license, and he is bragging that he even got Xerox to change license. Also, don't make much assumptions about the case from the ports@ mailing list. It doesn't have much info about the emailings about the license which resulted in the pulling of the two programs. Theo is not a saint, and he definitely said some unfortunate things, but so did DJB. Also, as others pointed out, Theo is merely sticking to their goals. I think what we see here is two colliding giants and neither of them is backing off.
Vilmos
Here is some background on /opt
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-3.8.html
What was that supposed to tell me? I know what OPT is used for... and the rationale was less than a paragraph of meaningless info.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
BSD is collapsing in complete disarray
I guess you wouldn't know, but while you've been away, there have been a whole slew of "BSD is collapsing" trolls in the same way that there were for Natalie Portman/Hot Grits etc. a while back. It's getting old now, but I guess trolls will be trolls. If they had a life, they'd be doing something worthwhile instead...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
It took some digging to figure out what the real problem with the qmail license is. OpenBSD requires that all applications (including those in ports) play by the rules. One of those rules is that the root directory cannot be modified--this means that OpenBSD is guaranteed to work with a read-only root. qmail violates this rule, because it wants to create /packages. The qmail license explicitly forbids the OpenBSD team from changing qmail to put its files somewhere other than /packages.
nik says: Note that NetBSD and FreeBSD continue to include qmail in their ports trees. DJB's license forbids redistribution of modified binaries, but does not forbid distribution of a 'framework' for modifying the source code.
This is misleading. DJB's license forbids the ports framework from changing the behaviour of qmail to follow the OpenBSD rules.
If you read the email between Theo and DJB, you will discover that DJB is angry that qmail is being dropped from OpenBSD ports, but he also refuses to allow anyone to change the behaviour of qmail to conform to the OpenBSD requirements for where package files are stored.
If qmail was Open Source or Free software, then there would be no problem, because then the OpenBSD team would automatically have the right to adapt qmail to work with OpenBSD. But they do not have this right, and DJB has made it very clear that he will not allow anyone to make the necessary changes. So Theo did the right thing when he dropped qmail from ports.
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
Software should be free or for profit. Not inbetween as some control freaks would like. However, the author of qmail does have the right to distribute his package anyway he sees fit just as Theo has the right to not include it. My complements to Theo for standing by his principles.
While I'm currently a Debian linux user, I've been contemplating moving to BSD. The choice I have to make was between Free or OpenBSD. With Theo throwing tantrums and removing software I'd planned on using, it seems I'll be installing FreeBSD.
The idea of /OPT was reasonable (install KDE and everything goes into a single KDE folder) but, of course, it would have worked just as well as ... /usr/local/kde
I agree. It's just as easy to make /usr/local/$PROGNAME on *n?x as it is to make C:\Program Files\%PROGNAME% on Windows and then throw a symlink to the executable into /usr/bin (the CLI equivalent of Windows's Start Menu).
Will I retire or break 10K?