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.
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.
>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.
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 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.