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.

Comments

license audit

[JDizzy]

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.